Steven Carroll Thesis PDF

RISK-BASED APPROACH TO ON-SITE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM SITING DESIGN AND

MANAGEMENT
A Thesis by Publication Submitted in

Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement of the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Steven P. Carroll
Bachelor of Engineering Hons(Civil)
Centre for Built Environment and Engineering Research

Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
October 2005
Abstract
The use of on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) for the treatment and
dispersal of domestic effluent is common in urban fringe areas which are not
serviced by centralised wastewater collection systems. However, due to inappropriate
siting and soil characteristics, the failure of these systems has become a common
scenario. The current standards and guidelines adopted by many local authorities for
assessing suitable site and soil conditions for OWTS are increasingly coming under
scrutiny due to the public health and environmental impacts caused by poorly
performing systems, in particular septic tank-soil adsorption systems. In order to
achieve sustainable on-site wastewater treatment with minimal impacts on the
environment and public health, more appropriate means of assessment are required.
The research described in the thesis details the processes adopted for the
development and implementation of an integrated risk based approach to OWTS
siting, design and management. This involved detailed investigations into resolution
of some of the inherent deficiencies identified in the existing OWTS codes and
guidelines, including more thorough site and soil assessment and data analysis,
integration of the key risk facets of OWTS siting and design, environmental and
public health, and the incorporation of scientific knowledge into the assessment
processes. The research undertaken focused on four key research areas; (i)
assessment of soil suitability for providing adequate treatment and dispersal of
domestic wastewater; (ii) contamination of ground and surface waters as a result of
OWTS failure and the major factors influencing contaminant fate and transport; (iii)
assessment of environmental and public health risks due to poor OWTS
performance; and (iv) the development of an integrated risk assessment framework
for OWTS siting, design and management.
The research conducted was multidisciplinary in nature, with detailed investigations

of the physical, chemical and biological processes involved in on-site wastewater
treatment and dispersal. This involved extensive field investigations, sampling,
laboratory testing and detailed data analysis across the fields of soil science,
groundwater and surface water quality, chemical and microbiological contamination,
and contaminant fate and transport processes. The interactions between these
i
different disciplines can be complex, resulting in large amounts of data being
generated from the numerous field investigations and sampling processes
undertaken. In order to understand the complex relationships that can occur,
multivariate statistical techniques were utilised. The use of these techniques were
extremely beneficial, as not only were the respective relationships between
investigated parameters identified, but adequate decisions based on the respective
correlations were formulated. This allowed a more appropriate assessment of the
influential factors, and subsequently the inherent hazards related to OWTS, to be
conducted.
The primary research objectives for this research were investigated through a series
of scientific papers centred on these key research disciplines. The assessment of soil
suitability was achieved through extensive soil sampling throughout the study area
and detailed laboratory testing and data analysis. The studies undertaken are
described in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. Paper 1 (Framework for soil suitability evaluation
for sewage effluent renovation) outlines a framework for assessing the renovation
ability of the major soil groups located throughout Southeast Queensland. This
framework formed the basis for the assessment of OWTS siting and design risks
employed in the developed risk framework. Paper 2 (Use of Chemometric Methods
and Multicriteria Decision-Making for Site Selection for Sustainable On-site Sewage
Effluent Disposal) details and justifies the multivariate data analysis techniques used
in establishing the soil framework. Paper 3 (Assessment of soil suitability for effluent
renovation using undisturbed soil columns) describes investigations of the use of
undisturbed soil cores for the assessment of long term soil renovation ability. This
study was undertaken to validate the research outcomes achieved through the
established framework developed in Paper 1.
Papers 4, 5 and 6 (Chapters 6 - 8) focus on contamination issues of ground and

surface waters resulting from poor OWTS treatment performance, and the different
factors that influence pollutant fate and transport. The investigation of ground and
surface water contamination, detailed in Paper 4 (Assessment of High Density of
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems on a Shallow Groundwater Coastal Aquifer
using PCA) and Paper 5 (Environmental and anthropogenic factors affecting fecal
coliforms and E. coli in ground and surface waters in a coastal environment) was
ii
achieved through extensive ground and surface water sampling and testing from
several monitored study sites. Analysis of the resulting data indicated that several
key factors, including rainfall, site and soil conditions and on-site system density can
significantly influence the fate and transportation of pollutants emitted from OWTS.
An additional issue found during this research in assessing faecal contamination of
water resources was the necessity to ensure that the respective sources of
contamination were actually OWTS. The inherent difficulty in identifying the actual
source of contamination was resolved by employing a source tracking method,
namely antibiotic resistance analysis of faecal coliforms (Paper 6; Sourcing fecal
pollution from onsite wastewater treatment systems in surface waters using antibiotic
resistance analysis). Finally, Paper 7 (Integrated Risk Framework for On-site
Wastewater Treatment Systems) describes the development of the final generic
integrated risk assessment framework and how the outcomes, as discussed through
the previous 6 papers, were combined to assess the environmental and public health
risks inherent in OWTS siting and design.
The outcomes of this research have significantly contributed to knowledge of best

practice in OWTS siting, design and management. The developed soil suitability
framework allows more appropriate assessment of soil characteristics for providing
effluent renovation. This is generally not done in the current assessment techniques
for OWTS. Additionally, the use of this framework incorporates scientific
knowledge into the assessment of OWTS, allowing a more rigorous and scientifically
robust assessment process. The processes and techniques used in the soil suitability
framework, although based on the common soil types typical of South East
Queensland, can be implemented in other regions, provided appropriate soil
information is collected for the area of interest.
The integrated risk framework has also been developed on a generic level, allowing
easy implementation into most assessment processes. This gives the framework the
flexibility to be developed for other areas specifically targeting the most influential
OWTS siting and design factors, and the potential environmental and public health
hazards within those regions. The resulting research outcomes achieved through the
studies undertaken were subsequently applied to a case study for the development of
the integrated risk framework for the Gold Coast region. The developed framework,
iii
based on scientific research, has allowed a more appropriate means of assessing site
suitability for OWTS and appropriate management and mitigation of the
environmental and public health risks inherent with poor OWTS performance.
Keywords: On-site wastewater treatment systems, risk assessment, risk

management, multivariate analysis, groundwater, contamination
iv
List of publications by Candidate
Published Journal Papers
1. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A. and Dawes, L. (2004) Framework for soil
suitability evaluation for sewage effluent renovation. Environmental Geology
46(2): 195-208
2. Khalil, W.A.S, Goonetilleke, A., Kokot, S and Carroll, S. (2004) Use of

chemometrics methods and multicriteria decision-making for site selection
for sustainable on-site sewage effluent disposal. Analytica Chimica Acta,
506(1): 41-56
3. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A., Khalil, W.A.S. and Frost, R. (2004)

Assessment via discriminant analysis of soil suitability for effluent renovation
using undisturbed soil columns. Geoderma In press, corrected proof
DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.03.022
4. Carroll, S. and Goonetilleke, A. (2005) Assessment of high density of onsite

wastewater treatment systems on a shallow groundwater aquifer using PCA.
Environmetrics 16: 257-274
5. Carroll, S., Hargreaves, M. and Goonetilleke, A. (2004) Sourcing fecal

pollution from onsite wastewater treatment systems in surface waters using
antibiotic resistance analysis. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 99: 471-482
6. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A., Thomas, E., Hargreaves, M., Frost, R. and
Dawes, L. (2004) Integrated Risk Framework for Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems. Peer review completed and accepted pending minor
revisions.
v
Journal Manuscripts under Review
1. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A., Hargreaves, M. and Thomas, E. (2004)
Environmental and anthropogenic factors affecting fecal coliforms and E. coli
in ground and surface waters in a coastal environment.
Peer review completed and resubmitted to Environmental Microbiology.
Peer Reviewed International Conference Papers

1. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A. and Thomas, E. (2003) Risk-based approach to
on-site wastewater treatment. In: Proceedings of On-site 03 Conference:
Future Directions for On-site Systems Best Management Practice.
Patterson, R.A. and Jones, M.J. (eds). Landfax Laboratories, Armidale, NSW,
pp 93-100
2. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A. and Hargreaves, M. (2004) Assessment of

environmental and public health risk form on-site treatment of wastewater.
In: On-site Wastewater Treatment X: Proceedings of the Tenth National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. ASAE,
Sacramento, California, USA. pp. 368-376
vi
CONTENTS
Abstract .................................................................................................................... i
List of publications by Candidate............................................................................ v
Statement of Original Authorship ........................................................................ xiv
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................. xv
Dedication ............................................................................................................ xvi
Chapter 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background to Research Project.................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Aims ............................................................................................... 2
1.3 Scope and Research Objectives ..................................................................... 3
1.4 Justification of Research ................................................................................ 5
1.5 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Research Methodology .................................................................................. 9
1.7 Multivariate Data Analytical Techniques ...................................................... 9
1.8 Linkage of scientific papers ......................................................................... 13
Chapter 2.0 On-site Wastewater Treatment ......................................................... 17

2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 17
2.2 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems ...................................................... 18
2.2.1 Septic Tanks ..................................................................................... 19
2.2.1.1 Overview .............................................................................. 19
2.2.1.2 Operation and Maintenance ................................................. 20
2.2.2 Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Systems ......................................... 21
2.2.2.1 Overview .............................................................................. 21
2.2.2.2 Operation and Maintenance ................................................. 25
2.2.3 Other On-site System Alternatives................................................... 26
2.2.4 Summary of Key Research Literature Findings............................... 26
2.3 Effluent Disposal ......................................................................................... 27
2.3.1 Subsurface disposal.......................................................................... 27
2.3.1.1 Subsurface systems .............................................................. 29
2.3.2 Surface Disposal .............................................................................. 30
2.3.2.1 Implications.......................................................................... 31
vii
2.4 Performance of On-site Systems.................................................................. 34
2.4.1 Performance Issues........................................................................... 34
2.4.2 On-site System density..................................................................... 37
2.4.3 Failure Consequences....................................................................... 38
2.4.3.1 Failure................................................................................... 38
2.4.3.2 Public Health ........................................................................ 42
2.4.3.3 Environmental Issues ........................................................... 44
2.4.4 Fate and Transport of Contaminants ................................................ 45
2.4.4.1 Nitrogen................................................................................ 47
2.4.4.2 Phosphorus ........................................................................... 49
2.4.4.3 Pathogens ............................................................................. 50
2.5.5 Summary of Research Literature...................................................... 57
2.6 Risk and On-Site Wastewater Treatment..................................................... 57
2.6.1 Generic Concepts of Hazard and Risk ............................................. 58
2.6.1.1 Hazards................................................................................. 58
2.6.1.2 Risk....................................................................................... 59
2.6.1.3 Risk Assessment................................................................... 63
2.6.1.4 Risk Management and Mitigation ........................................ 66
2.6.2 On-site Wastewater Treatment Management ................................... 67
2.6.3 Risk-based Approach to On-site Systems ........................................ 67
2.6.4 Overview of Current Risk Assessment/Management Models ......... 68
2.7 Conclusions from Literature Review ........................................................... 71
Chapter 3 Framework for soil suitability evaluation for sewage effluent

renovation ......................................................................................... 73
Statement of Contributions of Joint Authorship.................................................... 73
Linkage of Paper to Research Methodology and Development ............................ 74
Abstract.................................................................................................................. 76
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 77
Materials and methods........................................................................................... 79
Project area................................................................................................... 79
Soil sample collection .................................................................................. 80
Soil analysis ................................................................................................. 82
viii
Soil suitability framework............................................................................ 83
Data analysis ................................................................................................ 84
Principal Component Analysis .................................................................... 84
PROMETHEE and GAIA............................................................................ 85
Results and Discussion.......................................................................................... 88
PCA, PROMETHEE and GAIA .................................................................. 88
Permeability and drainage............................................................................ 96
Soil suitability ranking................................................................................. 97
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 100
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................. 101
References ........................................................................................................... 101
Chapter 4.0 Assessment via discriminant analysis of soil suitability for effluent
renovation using undisturbed soil columns ................................. 106
Statement of Contributions of Joint Authorship.................................................. 106
Linkage of Paper to Research Methodology and Development.......................... 107
Abstract ............................................................................................................... 109
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 110
Materials and Methods ........................................................................................ 112
Soil Column Setup ..................................................................................... 112
Effluent Application and Sampling ........................................................... 116
Soil Sampling and Analysis ....................................................................... 118
Discriminant Analysis (DA) ...................................................................... 118
Results and Discussion........................................................................................ 122
Effluent results ........................................................................................... 122
Discriminant Analysis of Soil Results ....................................................... 127
Soil Suitability ........................................................................................... 135
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 136
References ........................................................................................................... 136
Chapter 5.0 Use of chemometrics methods and multicriteria decision-making

for site selection for sustainable on-site effluent disposal........... 139
ix
Abstract................................................................................................................ 142
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 143
Sampling Sites............................................................................................ 147
Soil Testing ................................................................................................ 148
Chemometrics methods.............................................................................. 148
PROMETHEE................................................................................ 148
GAIA... .......................................................................................... 151
Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 152
Preliminary analysis ................................................................................... 152
Chemometrics analysis .............................................................................. 158
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 167
References ........................................................................................................... 169
Chapter 6.0 Assessment of high density of onsite wastewater treatment systems

on a shallow groundwater coastal aquifer using PCA ................ 172
Linkage of Paper to Research Methodology and Development .......................... 173
Summary.............................................................................................................. 175
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 176
Study Area.................................................................................................. 177
Hydrogeology............................................................................................. 180
Monitoring Wells ....................................................................................... 180
Sampling .................................................................................................... 181
Principal Component Analysis................................................................... 182
Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 183
Shallow Groundwater General Trends....................................................... 183
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) ....................................................... 187
PCA of Climate and Seasonal Patterns ...................................................... 191
PCA of Variations of System Type............................................................ 195
Conclusion........................................................................................................... 197
References ........................................................................................................... 198
x
Chapter 7.0 Environmental and anthropogenic factors affecting FC and E. coli
in ground and surface waters in a coastal environment............. 201
Summary ............................................................................................................. 204
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 205
Results and Discussion........................................................................................ 206
On-site Treatment System Density ............................................................ 207
Urbanisation............................................................................................... 209
Rainfall....................................................................................................... 210
Soil .... ........................................................................................................ 211
Groundwater depth..................................................................................... 212
Slope . ........................................................................................................ 212
PROMETHEE and GAIA analysis............................................................ 213
Summary of Results................................................................................... 216
Experimental Procedure ...................................................................................... 217
Research area and sampling locations ....................................................... 217
Environmental and anthropogenic factors ................................................. 220
Sample Collection...................................................................................... 221
Enumeration of Fecal Coliforms and E. coli ............................................. 222
Statistical Analysis..................................................................................... 222
References ........................................................................................................... 224
Chapter 8.0 Sourcing fecal pollution from onsite wastewater treatment systems
in surface waters using antibiotic resistance analysis................. 227
Abstract ............................................................................................................... 230
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 231
Study Area and Location of Monitoring Sites ........................................... 233
Sample Collection...................................................................................... 236
Development of Source Library................................................................. 236
Isolate Enumeration ................................................................................... 237
xi
Antibiotic Resistance Pattern Analysis ...................................................... 238
Discriminant Analysis of Antibiotic Resistance Patterns .......................... 239
Results ................................................................................................................. 241
Fecal Coliform and E.coli concentrations.................................................. 241
Antibiotic Resistance Patterns ................................................................... 242
Discriminant Analysis of E. coli Isolates................................................... 244
Classification of Unknown Source Isolates ............................................... 246
Discussions .......................................................................................................... 248
References ........................................................................................................... 251
Chapter 9.0 Integrated risk framework for onsite wastewater treatment

systems............................................................................................. 255
Linkage of Paper to Research Methodology and Development .......................... 256
Abstract................................................................................................................ 258
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 259
Study Area.................................................................................................. 262
Basis for Risk Assessment Process............................................................ 264
Problem Formulation and Logic Model Development .............................. 265
Risk Framework Elements ......................................................................... 267
Implementation of the Risk Assessment Framework ................................ 270
Data Requirements ..................................................................................... 275
Results and Discussions ...................................................................................... 276
Integrated Risk Assessment Framework.................................................... 276
OWTS siting and design, Environmental and Public Health Risk
Assessments and GIS risk map development ............................................ 276
GIS Database and Risk Map Development................................................ 280
Assessing the use of OWTS in high risk areas .......................................... 280
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 281
Literature Cited.................................................................................................... 282
xii
Chapter 10.0 General Discussion.......................................................................... 287
10.1 Soil suitability for effluent renovation....................................................... 288
10.2 Contamination and transport processes influencing environmental and
public health risks ...................................................................................... 292
10.3 Integrated Risk Framework for OWTS...................................................... 298
Chapter 11.0 Implementation of Integrated Risk Framework,

Gold Coast Region .......................................................................... 303
11.1 Problem Formulation and Hazard Identification ....................................... 303
11.2 Integrated Risk Assessment ....................................................................... 311
11.2.1 OWTS Siting and Design Risk Assessment .................................. 311
11.2.2 Environmental and Public Health Risk .......................................... 318
11.3 Development of Integrated Risk Maps ...................................................... 327
11.4 Assessment of at risk areas ........................................................................ 329
11.5 Critical Point Monitoring for Risk Management ....................................... 332
Chapter 12.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................. 334

12.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 334
12.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 337
Chapter 13.0 Consolidated List of References.................................................... 339
Appendix A Assessment of environmental and public health risk of on-site

wastewater treatment systems ...................................................... 359
Appendix B Risk zones developed for Gold Coast City ................................... 371
Appendix C Water quality data from monitored sampling locations, Gold
Coast City ........................................................................................ 379
Appendix D Sourcing of faecal contamination, Gold Coast City .................... 387
xiii
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or
diploma at any other higher education institutions to the best of my knowledge and
belief. This thesis contains no material previously published or submitted for
publication by another person except where due reference has been made.
Signed: Date:
(Steven Carroll)
xiv
Acknowledgments
Completion of this Doctoral research would not have been possible without the
support and assistance of numerous people throughout the research project. I would
like to express my appreciation to my Principal Supervisor, A/Prof Ashantha
Goonetilleke, and Associate Supervisors A/Prof Ray Frost, Dr Megan Hargreaves
and Adjunct Prof. Evan Thomas. Their support, guidance and professional advice
provided to me throughout the duration of the research has been invaluable and I am
extremely grateful for their assistance.
I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the staff of Gold Coast City
Council for their support and assistance throughout the development of the research
project, especially:
Mr John Bruce
Mr Matthew Hulse
Mr Paul Novy
Mr Jeremy Wagner
To my colleagues Mr Les Dawes and Mr Wael Al-Shiekh Khalil for their assistance
and advice in conducting field investigations, sampling and undertaking laboratory
analysis of samples.
I wish to acknowledge the generous support provided by Dr John Hayes, School of

Design and Built Environment, for his assistance in the development of the GIS
based risk maps.
I would also like to acknowledge Andrea Cobb and Natalie Jenkinson for their
assistance in conducting the microbiological analysis for the research project, and
Jeff Fisher and Chris Godwin for their assistance throughout the field investigations.
Finally, appreciation is extended to the staff of the School of Civil Engineering for
their support throughout my Doctoral research studies.
xv
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my father, Bernie, and to my mother, Gayle.
Their patience and understanding throughout the completion of this doctoral research
is gratefully appreciated.
xvi
CHAPTER 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to Research Project
On-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) siting, design and management have
traditionally been based on site specific conditions with little regard to the
surrounding environment or the cumulative effect of other systems in the
environment. Over the last few years, there has been increasing recognition that on-
site wastewater systems are in fact treatment systems, providing a means of
dispersing treated wastewater back to the environment or recycling it in a manner
that protects both public health and the environment. This has led to the development
of stringent treatment criteria and standards for on-site systems and the advancement
of new technologies to meet environmental sensitivity (Siegrist et al 2000).
Consequently, this has lead to the recognition of two interrelated issues. Firstly, there
is a need to ensure that appropriate technology is employed to adequately meet
specific environmental safeguards. Secondly, the articulation of treatment standards
and criteria which are flexible and robust enough to satisfy specific environmental
requirements. This involves the integration of the concepts of hazard assessment and
characterisation, risk assessment and risk management together with site specific
characteristics in the siting, design and management of on-site sewage treatment
systems (Jones et al 2000). The philosophical basis and language of risk are useful in
that they provide a logical framework for considering methodology to meet criteria
formulated to satisfy specific environmental standards. It enables a more rigorous,
systematic decision making process than the performance based approaches currently
being adopted (Hoover et al 1998, Eliasson et al 2001).
Unfortunately, these concepts are currently not being commonly applied to on-site
wastewater treatment. Instead, stereotypical on-site system site evaluation and design
criteria have been applied to sites located adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas
1
Chapter 1.0 Introduction
as have been applied to sites located in areas with less significant concerns. The
general approach has been to apply the same framework of standards and regulations
to all sites equally, regardless of the sensitivity, or lack thereof, to the receiving
environment. Consequently, this has led to the continuing poor performance and
failure of OWTS. Numerous incidence of poor treatment performance of on-site
systems, in particular septic systems, is quite common (Harris 1995, Scandura and
Sobsey 1997, Geary and Whitehead 2001, Lipp et al 2001, USEPA 2002). This
situation is further compounded by the existence of large densities of such systems in
many urban fringe areas, a common scenario which is particularly prevalent in the
Southeast region of Queensland State due to rapid urbanisation.
Several studies have been conducted in Australia which all indicated that failure of
OWTS is quite significant (Geary 1987, Jellife 1995, Goonetilleke et al 2000a,b,
Goonetilleke et al 2002, Geary and Whitehead 2001). A recent study on the treatment
performance of septic tanks within the Gold Coast City region indicated that
approximately 90% of the investigated systems were not meeting the stipulated
standards for effluent treatment (Goonetilleke et al 2002). Consequently, as a result
of this study, the Gold Coast City Council considered it necessary to develop more
suitable means of assessment and management of OWTS within their regulatory
region. This in turn led to the current research project for developing a risk-based
approach to on-site wastewater treatment system siting, design and management.
1.2 Research Aims
The main aim of this research was to develop an integrated risk-based approach for
assessing and managing on-site wastewater treatment systems. This involved a
multidisciplinary research approach to investigate the important aspects of the risk
process, including assessing soil suitability for effluent renovation, fate and transport
of pollutants from on-site system, microbiological assessment and soil and water
chemical analysis. In summary, the primary aims of this research project were:
1. To develop a comprehensive understanding of the processes relating to on-site

wastewater treatment systems, including site and soil characteristics and how
these factors influence the effluent renovation process.
2
2. To develop a comprehensive understanding of the fate and transport of specific

contaminants from on-site systems, including nutrients and pathogenic
organisms.
3. To investigate the fate and transport of pathogenic organisms and appropriate
means of sourcing their origin to improve the assessment of risk in relation to
public health.
4. To develop a generically based integrated risk framework for assessing and
managing on-site wastewater treatment systems.
5. To develop a GIS database to allow different risk characteristics to be analysed
for their individual and cumulative impacts.
1.3 Scope and Research Objectives
On-site wastewater treatment systems are common throughout southeast Queensland.

However, the concepts of risk assessment and risk management are currently not
being applied for the assessment of risks involved in the poor performance of on-site
systems. The main focus of this research was to incorporate strong scientific
knowledge into an integrated risk assessment process to allow suitable management
practices to be set in place to mitigate the inherent risks associated with on-site
systems. To achieve this, research was undertaken focusing on three main aspects
involved with the performance and management of OWTS.
Firstly, an investigation into the suitability of soil for providing appropriate effluent
renovation was conducted. Although both subsurface and surface dispersal systems
were investigated, the assessment of soil suitability was developed on the basis of
effluent infiltration through the soil matrix. The research did not investigate the soil
and site characteristics involved with surface or overland flow. The conducted
research focused on the assessment of soil physico-chemical characteristics for
attenuating and removing effluent contaminants as the effluent percolated through
the soil matrix, as well as soil hydraulic characteristics necessary for effluent
dispersal. This research was employed in the assessment of OWTS siting and design
risks. Secondly, an assessment of the environmental and public health risks was
performed specifically related the release of contaminants from OWTS. This
involved detailed groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis to assess the
3
current and potential risks of contamination throughout the Gold Coast region.
Finally, the outcomes of this research was utilised for the development of the
integrated risk framework.
The conducted research was specifically formulated around the performance issues
involved with the renovation of effluent after being discharged from on-site system
treatment units. The treatment capabilities and performance of the actual treatment
units and respective technologies was not investigated. Additionally, although
specific management ideals were developed as part of the risk framework for
mitigating the inherent risks investigated, it did not include general householder
management practices, or development of public education programs.
Therefore, the primary objectives of the research project were:
1. To develop a methodology for hazard identification and characterisation,

relating to on-site wastewater treatment in the context of the surrounding
environment (groundwater, surface water and soil) and its sensitivity to the poor
performance of on-site treatment systems;
2. To develop a cohesive integrated risk framework for the assessment of on-site
system siting and design based on environmental and public health risk
associated with on-site sewage treatment and to incorporate adequate scientific
knowledge to reduce uncertainty in establishing identified risks;
3. To develop a critical point monitoring program to allow the continual
monitoring and management of the environmental and public health risks
associated with on-site systems and the continual refinement of the risk
assessment process.
Although the main outcomes for the project were related to the Gold Coast area, the
specific objectives, including the final integrated risk assessment framework, was
aimed to be generic and applicable to other regions.
4
1.4 Justification of Research
OWTS are the most appropriate form of wastewater treatment in rapidly developing
areas that do not have access to centralised treatment facilities. However, due to
inadequacies in the current standards and codes utilised in assessing site suitability
for the use of OWTS, poor performance is common. This ultimately leads to
increased environmental and public health risks in areas that do not have suitable site
and soil characteristics to prevent the release of poorly treated effluent from OWTS
into the surrounding environment (Geary 1992, Siegrist et al 2000, Dawes and
Goonetilleke 2004). In order to improve the general performance of OWTS, it is
imperative that strong, scientifically based assessment and management guidelines
are developed that are recognised across local regulatory boundaries. Unfortunately,
this is currently lacking and existing codes and guidelines used for the assessment
and management of OWTS can differ substantially from one jurisdiction to another.
The development of risk-based applications for OWTS was described as one of the
single most important aspects lacking in the assessment and management of on-site
systems in the United States at a recent National Research Needs Conference: Risk-
based decision making for on-site wastewater treatment (Jones et al 2000, Nelson
2000). Although highlighting key research needs towards the assessment and
management of on-site systems within the United States, similar issues are evident in
other countries, including Australia, indicating that research conducted towards
addressing these needs are of international significance. This research project was
aimed at contributing to the knowledge base relating to the risk-based decision
making associated with OWTS. In particular, the development of a risk assessment
and management framework that is both universally acceptable and scientifically
robust to reduce uncertainty in establishing the environmental and public health risks
would be beneficial towards the assessment of OWTS and minimising the inherent
risks associated with poor performance. This is particularly important for areas such
as Gold Coast due to the current rate of development, high failure rates of OWTS,
and the numerous environmentally sensitive areas for which the region is famous.
The outcomes of this research, including the developed integrated risk assessment
framework and subsequent risk maps will be a part of the development assessment
process in the Gold Coast Region. This will allow adequate assessment of the
5
numerous OWTS within their regulatory region, and allow the management and
mitigation of the identified risks.
1.5 Study Area
Research was confined to the Gold Coast region. Gold Coast region is situated in
Southeast Queensland and covers approximately 1,500 km2, bordered by Logan City
and Brisbane City in the North, Beaudesert Shire to the west and the New South
Wales (NSW) state boundary to the south, as depicted in Figure 1.1. Gold Coast
region is a major tourist destination, with significant ecosystems such as, World
Heritage sites, important water resources and Ramsar wetland sites located
throughout the hinterland region. Additionally, the region is one of the most rapidly
urbanising areas in Australia. Due to the escalating cost of infrastructure, on-site
systems are the most economical and accepted means of wastewater treatment within
the rapidly developing urban fringe areas. The region currently has over 15,000 on-
site wastewater treatment systems with a majority of them being conventional septic
tank-soil absorption systems. Large clusters of OWTS exist in various locations
throughout the region as shown in Figure 1.1, and their cumulative effect has become
a major concern for the Gold Coast City Council. Several areas have been identified
as sensitive to environmental and public health impacts as a result of poor OWTS
performance. These areas have high densities of OWTS (>500 systems/km2) and
commonly site and soil characteristics can be inadequate for appropriate effluent
treatment and dispersal (Carroll and Goonetilleke 2004).
The Gold Coast region has a diverse range of soil types as shown in Figure 1.2. The
most prominent soil is the Kurosol group, as classified under the Australian Soil
Classification (Isbell 2002), which constitutes approximately 52% of the entire Gold
Coast area. This is significant in relation to effluent treatment and dispersal, as
Kurosol soils, formally categorised as podsolic soils and soloths, (including some red
and yellow earths) under earlier soil classifications (Stace et al 1968) were
considered inappropriate for effluent dispersal (Nobel 1996). The other problem soils
with respect to OWTS are the Podosol and Tenosol soil groups, which constitute a
majority of the soils along the coastal fringes. These are sandy soil, and although
providing suitable dispersal properties, generally have minimal pollutant attenuation
6
and removal characteristics. The suitability of these sandy soils for effluent
renovation is further reduced if they are influenced by seasonal or permanent shallow
Figure 1.1: Gold Coast City showing locations of OWTS
water tables. This particular soil group, classified as Hydrosols, are the least suitable
for OWTS, providing minimal treatment, with dispersal directly into the groundwater
itself. The remaining soil groups found in the Gold Coast hinterland region consist of
a mixture of Ferrosols, Dermosols, and Kandosols soils with minor areas of
Sodosols, Rudosols and Organosols. The Ferrosols, Dermosols and Kandosols are
generally regarded as being suitable for effluent renovation.
7
Figure 1.2: Soil association of Gold Coast City
8
1.6 Research Methodology
The implementation of a suitable methodology which adequately encompasses the

specific research aims and objectives set out for this project was essential. The
process of progressing from the initial problem formulation to the final integrated
risk framework involved several iterations prior to achieving the specified objectives
and development of the risk maps. Figure 1.3 illustrates the methodology adopted for
this research project. Essentially, the methodology involved several stages to allow
both the individual and final integrated risk frameworks to be developed via an
iterative approach, which was refined with the collection of relevant data and
progressive analysis undertaken. This process allowed the development of the risk
frameworks to move from a qualitative approach based on empirical and qualitative
relationships to a quantitative process incorporating appropriate scientific data and
information.
The implementation of the developed research methodology was formulated around

seven scientific research papers. Each of these studies focused on a specific stage of
the research with the respective outcomes utilised in the development of the risk
framework. The overall methodology and development of these scientific papers in
the context of the research project is depicted in Figure 1.3. Detailed descriptions of
the linkages between these scientific papers and their respective outcomes in relation
to the development of the risk framework are provided in Section 1.8.
1.7 Multivariate Data Analytical Techniques
Soil and water analysis can be complex, resulting in large amounts of data being
generated from the numerous field investigations and sampling processes undertaken
through this research. This makes it difficult to manipulate or evaluate the resulting
data on a univariate level due to the adverse relationships between analysed
variables. To overcome this issue, the use of multivariate analytical techniques was
adopted. Multivariate data analysis is beneficial in that large volumes of data can be
processed for exploring and understanding relationships between different
parameters. This is typically achieved through the procedures of pattern recognition,
classification and prediction techniques.
9
Baseline data Stakeholder consultation
Hazard identification Preliminary risk criteria
Development of
preliminary risk maps
Development of
preliminary methodologies
Identification of areas and frameworks for
for risk investigation individual risk
Selection of study sites Papers

for field 1 and 2
Desktop Study
Field investigation
and data analysis
Paper Data collection Soil, surface water

4 and 5 and sewage effluent
sampling and testing
Paper 3 Data review and

analysis Paper 6
Paper 7
Development of final
Hazard and risk Re-define preliminary methodologies and
characterisation risk map frameworks for individual
risk assessments Database development
Stakeholder/community
consultation
Re-define risk map
Individual risk assessment
Development of methodology
for integration of individual
risk assessments into a single
risk framework
Stakeholder/community
consultation
1. Development of generic risk
criteria for onsite sewage treatment
2. Development of risk map for Gold
Coast region
Integrated risk assessment
Figure 1.3: Schematic diagram showing detailed representation of research to be
undertaken highlighting methodology and development of scientific papers
10
Additionally, the use of multicriteria decision making aids, such as PROMETHEE

and GAIA, allows the incorporation of selection, optimisation and decision making
ordeals into multivariate processes. The use of these techniques were extremely
beneficial, as not only were the respective relationships between investigated
parameters identified, but adequate decisions based on these correlations were also
formulated. The multivariate approaches utilised for assessing the data obtained
through soil and water investigations consisted of three common methods.
PCA
PCA is a multivariate statistical data analysis technique which reduces a set of raw
data into a number of principal components which retain the most variance within the
original data to identify possible patterns or clusters between objects and variables.
Detailed descriptions of PCA can be found elsewhere (Massart et al 1988, Adams
1995; Kokot et al 1998). After decomposition of the raw data matrix, principal
components (PCs) are chosen so that PC1 describes most of the data variance,
followed by PC2 which retains the next largest amount of data variance but which is
orthogonal to PC1. This means that PC2 is independent of PC1. The advantage of
PCA is that most of the data variance is contained within the first few PCs, reducing
the dimensionality of the multivariate data matrix (Kokot et al 1998).
Objects (in this case soil and water samples) that retain similar variances in the
analysed variables will have similar PCA scores which will cluster together when
plotted. Likewise, relationships between variables can be easily identified by the
respective coefficients. Strongly correlated variables will generally have the same
magnitude and orientation when plotted, whereas uncorrelated variables are typically
orthogonal (perpendicular) to each other. Clusters of object data and their respective
relationships with the analysed variable can clearly be seen when respective scores
and coefficients are plotted on a biplot. This allows respective relationships between
analysed variables and respective objects to be identified.
Discriminant Analysis
To assess the ability of the different soil types for renovating effluent, discriminant
analysis (DA) was employed to discriminate between major soil characteristics
influencing the relevant processes. Discriminant analysis is a multivariate statistical
analysis technique where a data set containing X variables is separated into a
11
number of pre-defined groups using linear combinations of analysed variables. This

allows analysis of their spatial relationships and identification of the respective
discriminative variables for each group (Wilson 2002). Similar to PCA, objects that
retain similar variances in the analysed variables will have similar discriminant
scores and when plotted will cluster together. Similarly, strongly correlated variables
will also have the same magnitude and orientation when plotted, whereas
uncorrelated variables will be orthogonal (perpendicular). Visualising these biplots is
undertaken in a similar manner as the well known PCA biplot.
There are two main functions for which DA is commonly employed. Firstly, it is
used to analyse the differences between two or more groups of multivariate data
using one or more discriminant functions in order to maximally separate the
identified groups. Secondly, DA can be employed to obtain linear mathematical
functions which can be used to classify the original data, or new, unclassified data,
into the respective groups (Brereton 1990). Both techniques have been utilised
through this research.
PROMETHEE and GAIA

PROMETHEE and GAIA are multicriteria decision making (MCDM) aids that rank
actions according to specific criteria and thresholds. The details of PROMETHEE
and GAIA are described elsewhere (Visual Decision Inc. 1999; Keller et al 1991),
and therefore only a brief summary of the methods is provided here. The
PROMETHEE method uses a pair-wise comparison system in which each action
(soil sample) is compared to all other actions one-by-one defined by the preference
functions, with thresholds and weights adopted by the decision-maker (Visual
Decision Inc. 1999). PROMETHEE establishes preference flows () for each action
and ranks these based on the preference flows. Partial ranking (PROMETHEE I)
utilises the + and - preference flows for ranking the actions. The positive flow,
+, determines the degree to which each soil sample is preferred over other samples,
with higher positive values receiving a higher rank. The negative flow - determines
the degree to which other soil samples are preferred over a particular sample.
However, if samples have conflicting flows or preferences, they are considered
incomparable in the PROMETHEE I ranking (Visual Decision Inc. 1999). The net
12
flow ( = + - -), also called the Pi score, represents the complete ranking
(PROMETHEE II) of samples, with higher flow values ranked more highly. Both
PROMETHEE I and II rankings were analysed to establish which soils were more
suitable for effluent renovation.
GAIA provides a diagrammatic representation of the ranking methods of

PROMETHEE, utilising a PCA technique. PCA is applied to the net preference
flows (), and a biplot or GAIA plane, of the first two PCs is developed. Although
no initial pre-treatment of data is needed to be undertaken, the preference functions
established by PROMETHEE act to normalise the data, thereby providing some pre-
treatment of the initial data. An additional feature of the GAIA plane is the
incorporation of the Pi decision axis. The orientation of the Pi axis emphasises which
criteria and actions are more dominant in the analysis (Visual Decision Inc. 1999).
1.8 Linkage of scientific papers
Satisfactory performance of on-site wastewater treatment systems, in particular

septic systems, depends mainly on the ability of the underlying soil to renovate and
transmit the discharged effluent. Consequently, one of the most important issues
regarding the appropriate use of on-site wastewater treatment systems is the proper
assessment of the site and soil characteristics which play a vital role in the treatment
and dispersal of discharged effluent. However, past methods of assessing a soils
ability to treat and disperse applied effluent have only relied on percolation tests and
empirical relationships. Although these methods may indicate the soils ability to
disperse effluent, they do not necessarily indicate the soils effluent treatment ability.
The concept of soil effluent renovation ability (ability of the soil to attenuate and
remove pollutants and provide adequate dispersal) is described in detail through
Papers 1, 2 and 3. Paper 1 (Framework for soil suitability evaluation for sewage
effluent renovation) outlines a framework for assessing the renovation ability of the
major soil groups located throughout Southeast Queensland, in particular the Gold
Coast. Using multivariate statistical methods, the assessed soils were ranked in order
of their ability to provide suitable effluent renovation based on their physical and
chemical characteristics. The most significant outcome from this study was that
13
Kurosol soils, previously considered inappropriate for the renovation of effluent, did
in fact provide sufficient renovation ability, and therefore were considered as suitable
for on-site wastewater treatment. However, although this study provided the
renovation suitability of major soil groups within Southeast Queensland, the
suitability ratings were established based on scientific analysis of soils which had not
been previously exposed to effluent. Consequently, further validation of these
suitability rankings in relation to field conditions under long term effluent exposure
was necessary.
Paper 2 (Assessment of soil suitability for effluent renovation using undisturbed soil
columns) clarifies and confirms the outcomes of the soil renovation ability ranking
described in Paper 1. Paper 2 analyses the results of 8 months of laboratory column
experiments using six undisturbed soil cores for providing adequate effluent
renovation. The primary aim of this paper was to compare the original soil
conditions, focusing on their physical and chemical characteristics, with that after 8
months of effluent application. Discriminant Analysis was undertaken to firstly
discriminate between the different soil groups, and subsequently to assess the
respective changes after effluent application. The outcomes of this investigation
agreed with results of the developed framework, providing more scientific reliability
as to which soils are more suitable for siting on-site systems and effluent treatment
and dispersal.
Both Papers 1 and 2 investigate the ability of common soil types found in Southeast
Queensland for renovating effluent. However, although these papers use various
multivariate statistical techniques to assess the soil physical and chemical data, a
detailed description of the statistical methods adopted were not the main focus of
these studies. Therefore, Paper 3 (Use of chemometrics methods and multicriteria
decision-making for site selection for sustainable onsite sewage effluent disposal),
provides a more detailed discussion on the multivariate methods used for assessing
site and soil suitability for effluent renovation, with a major focus on the multicriteria
decision aids of PROMETHEE and GAIA. The combined outcomes from Papers 1,
2 and 3 provided a more scientific basis for assessing the ability of soil to renovate
effluent.
14
Although soil has a significant role in renovating effluent prior to discharging into
water resources, inadequate assessment techniques have led to inappropriate soil
types being approved for effluent treatment and dispersal. Paper 4 (Assessment of
high density of onsite wastewater treatment systems on a shallow groundwater
aquifer using PCA) highlights the need for better assessment and management of
OWTS. Analysis of collected groundwater and surface water samples from 11
monitored locations showed that high densities of OWTS lead to significant nutrient
and microbiological contamination of the shallow groundwater aquifer. However, it
was also evident that some factors, such as soil and topography, climatic conditions
and the type of on-site system used, play important roles which can either decrease or
increase the extent of contamination.
The factors that influence the fate and transport processes of pollutants from OWTS
are of significant importance, particularly in relation to the assessment of public
health risks. The main focus of Paper 5 (Environmental and anthropogenic factors
affecting fecal coliforms and E. coli in ground and surface waters in a coastal
environment) was the assessment of various soil and site related factors that
influence the fate and transport of microbiological contaminants into ground and
surface waters near high densities of OWTS. The microbiological contamination of
water resources is becoming important, particularly in light of the need to have
adequate water supplies for rapidly developing areas. The research reports on the
evaluation of extensive groundwater and surface water investigations undertaken and
microbiological assessment through the use of indicator faecal coliforms and E. coli.
Although several factors were observed to significantly impact on levels of faecal
coliforms in the water, it was found that the combined impact of the investigated
anthropogenic and environmental factors resulted in higher faecal pollution than any
individual factor alone. However, the actual source of faecal pollution was not
investigated in this paper.
Neglecting to identify the different sources of faecal bacteria has been a limitation of
most studies assessing faecal contamination of water sources until recently. Paper 6
(Sourcing fecal pollution from onsite wastewater treatment systems in surface waters
using antibiotic resistance analysis) seeks to address the issue of sourcing faecal
indicator organisms. Whilst the presence of faecal bacteria in water resources does
15
indicate that faecal contamination has occurred, the faecal indicators may not be
from one particular source, but rather from a variety of sources in the region,
including on-site systems, domesticated and wild animals. Therefore, in order to
reduce the uncertainty in assessing public health risks using faecal indicators in this
research, Paper 6 describes the use of a Bacterial Source Tracking (BST) method,
Antibiotic Resistance Analysis (ARA), to identify the respective source categories of
the faecal coliforms obtained in collected water samples. Being able to accurately
categorise the various sources of faecal contamination has a number of benefits.
More suitable public health risk assessments can be achieved by removing a major
uncertainty in using faecal coliforms for the assessment of public health.
Additionally, identifying the major sources of faecal pollution allows more suitable
management protocols to be implemented to control the respective sources of
contamination. The use of ARA for this research project, as described in Paper 6,
allowed the effect of faecal contamination from human sources, in particular OWTS,
in several sensitive areas of the Gold Coast to be assessed. This information has since
been used for assessing the respective risks to public health for the Gold Coast region
and developing the risk assessment maps.
The development of the integrated risk assessment framework and how the
outcomes, as discussed through the previous 6 papers, were combined to assess the
respective risks and to identify the low and at risk areas throughout Gold Coast
region are discussed in Paper 7 (Integrated Risk Framework for Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems). The developed risk-based approach shows that by developing
the risk framework around the assessment process and relevant stakeholders, a more
suitable framework can be developed with wide ownership among stakeholder
groups, which can be successfully implemented into the current standards and
guidelines.
16
CHAPTER 2.0
ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
2.1 Introduction
On-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) are capable of providing adequate

treatment and ultimate dispersal of domestic wastewater. However, the all too
common flush and forget attitude attributed by many householders using OWTS is
a major problem. A current lack of knowledge and awareness regarding OWTS use,
maintenance and management is all too common, particularly amongst householders.
The type of system adopted is dependent on a number of siting, design, operational
and management issues that need to be addressed in order to obtain adequate
treatment performance. Although some regulatory control is evident, siting and
design factors are still major causes of poor system performance. The operational and
maintenance aspects are generally left to the householder. As such, regular
operational and maintenance procedures are often neglected, leading to poor system
performance and subsequent failure.
Numerous cases of system failure have been reported over the past years, increasing
the concerns of regulatory authorities that on-site systems are not providing adequate
treatment of domestic wastewater. The performance of on-site systems and the need
to consider site and soil characteristics in their siting and design have been
investigated by numerous researchers such as Brouwer and Bugeja (1983), Caldwell
Connell Engineers (1986), Geary (1993), Geary et al (1999) Goonetilleke et al
(2000). The outcomes of these studies confirm that many systems fail due to
inadequate consideration of key site and soil characteristics, giving rise to potential
environmental and public health risks. As such, it is recognised that a move away
from the current performance based criteria used in the siting, design and
management of on-site systems towards the evolving risk-based criteria is warranted.
Subsequently, various risk-based approaches have recently been devised, ranging
17
Chapter 2.0 On-site Wastewater Treatment
from computer based models, to more refined management frameworks that

incorporate various approaches aimed at reducing the inherent risks developed
through the poor performance of OWTS.
This chapter firstly provides a review of the common forms of on-site wastewater
treatment systems that are currently used for treatment of domestic wastewater in
Australia in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the processes
involved in the wastewater treatment train. The issues and concerns dealing with
system failure are reviewed, including a discussion on the transport and fate of the
major contaminants of concern, including nitrogen, phosphorus and pathogenic
organisms. The resultant hazards arising from the inadequate treatment of wastewater
are also described. The concepts of risk, including risk assessment and management,
and the various techniques commonly used to minimise the effects of risk exposure
are reviewed. The applications of risk assessment and management to on-site
wastewater treatment systems are described, and the current models, frameworks and
methods used for assessing and managing OWTS are reviewed.
2.2 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems
The need for on-site treatment systems is increasing at a significant rate due to new
developments in urban and semi-urban areas which do not have access to centralised
treatment plants and sewer systems. In the past, on-site systems were typically
installed as temporary systems until centralised treatment systems could be
implemented. However, this situation has not changed with on-site treatment systems
becoming a permanent feature in most modern semi-urban developments.
Approximately 25% of all housing units in the United States are connected to on-site
treatment systems (Loomis et al 2001; Siegrist 2001), and this number is increasing
every year. This trend is also evident in Australia where currently 17% of households
employ on-site wastewater treatment systems (O'Keefe 2001).
In general terms, OWTS consist of three primary components; (1) the treatment unit;
(2) the dispersal field; and (3) the soil (US EPA 2002). Typically, these systems can
be broadly classified as either anaerobic systems or aerobic systems followed by a
dispersal system, either subsurface or surface. The most common form of anaerobic
18
treatment system consists of a septic tank-soil absorption system. A typical setup for
this type of system is shown in Figure 2.1. Various other effluent disposal options for
septic tanks can also be utilised, such as mounds and evapotranspiration systems,
where typical subsurface soil absorption systems are not suitable. However, Aerobic
Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS) employing surface irrigation for final
treatment and disposal of effluent are steadily becoming more popular, mainly due to
their improved treatment performance. Sand filters have, of late, also had significant
recognition in providing effluent polishing before ultimate disposal. However, sand
filters are typically only employed where effluent quality is of significant importance
in relation to the final disposal.
Septic tank
Distribution box
Effluent disposal
Gravel or crushed
rock fill
Unexcavated area Effluent disposal area
Figure 2.1: Common on-site wastewater treatment systems used in Australia.

(adapted from AS1547: 2000)
2.2.1 Septic Tanks
2.2.1.1 Overview
Septic tanks are the most common form of on-site wastewater treatment system used
in Australia. Although often viewed as inferior to centralized wastewater treatment,
septic systems are, and will continue to be the most prominent method of wastewater
treatment in low density areas of development (Noss and Billa 1988). Septic tanks
19
allow the settlement of solids from the raw sewage, anaerobic digestion of organic
matter, storage of sludge and scum, and discharge of clarified effluent for final
treatment and dispersal (US EPA 1980, Goonetilleke et al 1999; USEPA 2002).
Septic tanks basically provide sufficient time for suspended solids and partially
decomposed sludge to settle to the bottom of the tank and gradually accumulate. A
layer of scum, composing of lightweight material, including fats and greases, rises to
the surface of the clarified liquid (US EPA 1980). Regular removal of the
accumulated septage approximately every three to five years is necessary to ensure
that the system continues to function appropriately. Figure 2.2 shows a typical single
chamber septic tank and the various zones developed within the treatment chamber.
Inspection Ports
Influent Effluent
Scum
Supernatant
Sludge
Figure 2.2: Typical single chamber septic tank, showing the

developed scum, clear liquid and sludge layers.
2.2.1.2 Operation and Maintenance
The proper operation and maintenance of septic tanks is crucial if they are to
continually provide adequate sewage treatment. Hydraulic retention times are critical
parameters that need to be considered in septic tank designs. The hydraulic retention
time dictates the treatment process, defining how efficient the septic tank is at
settling out suspended solids. The longer the retention time, the more time suspended
solids have for settling, thus improving effluent quality. This provides a larger clear
20
water volume and accumulation of sludge, which in turn demands a large septic tank
capacity (Goonetilleke et al 1999). Shorter retention times provide less time for
suspended solids to settle, reducing the volume of clear water. This increases the
level of sludge and scum accumulation in the tank, which in turn increases the level
of solids in the effluent which is discharged to the soil absorption trench, thus
accelerating clogging of the trench. There is general consensus that the most
appropriate retention time suitable for adequate treatment performance is 24 hours
(US EPA 1980, Bounds 1997, AS/NZS 1547: 2000).
Although septic tank systems are capable of providing suitable treatment of effluent,
failure is a common. One of the most significant issues related to on-site systems and
their poor performance record is that regular maintenance is not undertaken. Recent
performance evaluations of on-site sewage treatment systems conducted in
Queensland, Australia by Goonetilleke et al (2002), Goonetilleke et al (2000a,b),
showed that the 'failure' rates of septic systems are directly related with poor
maintenance regimes. Goonetilleke et al (2002) showed that 90% of septic systems
investigated in the Gold Coast region exhibited poor treatment performance as sludge
was not regularly removed. It is evident that householders have an inadequate
awareness and lack of knowledge regarding appropriate maintenance and
management of OWTS. In order to overcome the common out of sight, out of
mind scenario, more effective education in relation to OWTS maintenance and
management needs to be undertaken (Allee et al 2001).
2.2.2 Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Systems
2.2.2.1 Overview
Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS) can have significant benefits over
the traditional septic tank-soil absorption systems, and are steadily gaining in
popularity. Generally, AWTS are designed to replace septic tank-soil absorption
systems where limitations relating to soil characteristics, topography and site
conditions are not acceptable for the use of subsurface treatment and disposal
systems. Aerobic (oxygen dependent) digestion of organic matter provides high
quality effluents containing oxidised by products, carbon dioxide and metabolised
21
biomass (US EPA 1980, US EPA 2002). Oxygen is provided to the wastewater
typically by mechanical means. The aerobic process differs from anaerobic processes
where, through the presence of oxygen, organic material and ammonium-nitrogen are
oxidised and digested by aerobic microorganisms. Suspended solids concentrations
are also significantly reduced compared to anaerobic systems and, with the addition
of disinfection devices, reduction in pathogenic organisms is also obtained (US EPA
1980).
Aerobic wastewater treatment systems generally consist of two main treatment

processes. The first system type utilises fully aerobic processes, consisting of either
suspended or fixed growth media for allowing aerobic bacteria to digest wastewater
materials. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 provided typical configurations of fully aerobic
systems. The second type of system is where an anaerobic chamber is employed as
an initial pre-treatment process, as shown in Figure 2.5. The anaerobic treatment
process always precedes the aerobic treatment. Each system has its own advantages
and limitations, but in general, the same common features of oxygen transfer to the
wastewater, contact between microorganisms and wastes, and solids separation and
removal are utilised by each system (US EPA 2002).
Watertight
tank
Raw
To soil
sewage
treatment
Separation
wall
Air Settling Aerobic

sources solids bacteria
Figure 2.3: Suspended growth aerobic treatment system.

(adapted from Gustafson et al 2001)
22
Fixed
film
Raw To soil
sewage treatment
Aerobic Air Watertight Settling

bacteria sources tanks solids
Figure 2.4: Fixed film aerobic treatment system.

(adapted from Gustafson et al 2001)
Motor and
Baffle Cover aerator assembly
Raw
sewage To soil
treatment
Solids Clarification
breakdown chamber
chamber
Sludge
Aeration Aerobic
chamber bacteria
Figure 2.5: Schematic diagram showing anaerobic pretreatment of effluent before
undergoing aerobic treatment. (adapted from Fulhage and Pfrost 1997)
From a wastewater treatment perspective, AWTS are beneficial for on-site treatment
as they are capable of removing larger amounts of BOD and suspended solids than
typical septic tanks. AWTS have also been shown to provide substantial nitrification
23
of ammonia contained in the wastewater, and can also reduce pathogen numbers
significantly (Brewer et al 1978; Hanna et al 1995).
Aerobic wastewater treatment systems generally employ fairly long hydraulic and
solids retention times to ensure a high degree of treatment at minimal operational
control (US EPA 1980). Although providing a higher level of BOD and suspended
solids removal, high suspended solids washout can be a significant problem. As for
septic tanks, some organic material will not be oxidized during the treatment process.
Together with the long solid retention times adopted, these unoxidised materials will
accumulate forming a sludge layer. This accumulation of sludge should be removed
to prevent the washout of suspended solids. This is considered one of the main
operational problems associated with AWTS.
Another significant disadvantage of AWTS is the nitrification of ammonia in the

wastewater before ultimate disposal. This can be a major issue in regard to pollution
of the surrounding environment and public health consequences (Converse and Tyler
1998). AWTS may contribute more nitrates to groundwater than a typical septic
tank-soil absorption system due to the ammonia and organic nitrogen being
converted into nitrate (NO3-) within the treatment unit and not in the soil matrix. This
can cause increased levels of nitrates in the soil, which can freely migrate to the
groundwater. A recent study undertaken by Carroll and Goonetilleke (2004) showed
that relatively higher levels of nitrate are present in groundwater in areas that had a
high number of aerobic systems compared to areas that relied on septic systems.
Other disadvantages associated with AWTS are:
increased susceptibility to shock loadings, due to sudden high loading or
intermittent loading;
sludge bulking and periodic solids washout, which causes high variations in
effluent quality; and
larger volume of sludge produced when compared to anaerobic systems.
(Bailey and Wallman 1971; Otis et al 1974)
24
2.2.2.2 Operation and Maintenance
An important issue relating to the operation of aerobic wastewater treatment systems,

as compared to septic tanks, is the mechanical devices employed to achieve aeration
and recycling of biomass. These can have implications on the performance of
AWTS, particularly through the malfunction of mechanical components or improper
maintenance and design procedures (Hanna et al 1995, Khalife and Dharmappa 1996,
Beavers et al 1999). Generally, AWTS manufacturers are required to undertake
maintenance associated with mechanical malfunctions and equipment to ensure the
system is operating correctly (in Australia this occurs approximately every three
months). However, as with septic tanks, regular routine maintenance is left to the
householder, who, in most cases, is not adequately trained to undertake the necessary
maintenance required.
In general, AWTS are capable of providing high quality treatment of sewage,

provided they are properly maintained. Khalife and Dharmappa (1996) have made
the following recommendations to overcome the deficiencies relating to AWTS:
The facility should be user friendly and simple to operate;
Improved operation and maintenance is critical
Homeowner education is necessary
Training of regulatory staff in local authorities on technical aspects.
Inadequate frequency of the removal of suspended solids in the settling tank, which
leads to solids carry over, is also a problem. Again, this is due to the lack of proper
maintenance by the householder. Routine maintenance is essential for continual
successful operation of AWTS. Unfortunately, regular maintenance is all too often
neglected. Disinfection of effluent is typically employed for the effluent from
AWTS, providing a much higher effluent quality, thus allowing reuse of the
wastewater. Disinfection is commonly achieved by means of chlorine tablets placed
in the system via a feeder, and dispensed into the effluent by dissolving in the
wastewater. Although beneficial in disinfecting the effluent against pathogens, these
devices have their limitations. These include:
Masking of pathogenic organisms by suspended solids;
25
Contact time with the tablet may not be enough, due to problems associated with
the devices, such as feeder blockage; and
Tablets missed either due to forgetfulness on the part of the householder or
blocked feeders.
2.2.3 Other On-site System Alternatives
Although AWTS and septic tank systems are the most common system types utilised
in Australia, other alternative systems types are available. These include additional
treatment following conventional OWTS (nominally septic tank systems) such as
sand filters, wetlands, media filters and a variety of alternative dispersal methods
such as mounds and surface irrigation systems. On the other hand, alternative stand-
alone treatment systems such as waterless toilets, using composting or incineration as
disposal methods, and variations and adaptations of current system technology are
increasing in popularity. These system types are generally utilised for various
purposes, including improved effluent quality compared to current systems; reduced
water usage, or to allow suitable recycling of treated wastewater.
2.2.4 Summary of Key Research Literature Findings
The review of current research literature has indicated that several alternative
wastewater treatment systems are available for the treatment and dispersal of
domestic wastewater. However, the most common system types currently utilised in
Australia are the septic and aerobic wastewater treatment systems (AWTS).
Although these systems are capable of providing suitable treatment of wastewater, a
number of issues have been discussed throughout the reviewed literature that can
highly influence the overall treatment performance. The two most common issues
involve appropriate operation and maintenance of utilised systems and effluent
quality. For any OWTS, undertaking regular maintenance is essential in order to
ensure acceptable treatment of effluent is obtained prior to discharging to the
dispersal field. Inappropriate maintenance results in poor effluent quality that can
eventually lead to failure of the dispersal field, and subsequent environmental and
public health risks.
26
2.3 Effluent Disposal
2.3.1 Subsurface disposal
Until recently, the final discharge of treated effluent from on-site wastewater
treatment systems has generally been regarded as ultimate disposal. However, there
is increasing awareness that the disposal of partially treated effluent to surface or
subsurface environments is in fact part of the treatment process. Subsurface
wastewater treatment and dispersal refers to the application of partially treated
wastewater to a subsurface environment, with infiltration and percolation through the
vadose zone (unsaturated zone), and finally into the saturated soil and underlying
groundwater (Siegrist et al 2000). Figure 2.6 shows the major treatment components
and effluent pathways associated with the subsurface dispersal process. The vadose
zone is the final buffer between ground water and the contaminants contained in
effluent applied to the soil. The depth of the soil vadose zone to ground water can
affect hydraulic function, and in turn purification, by influencing the soil water
content, aeration status, media surface area as well as hydraulic retention time (Van
Cuyk et al 2001). Typically, a depth of at least 1m is regarded as appropriate for
sufficient treatment of effluent (US EPA 1980, Siegrist et al 2000, US EPA 2002).
Figure 2.6: Major components and pathways in subsurface disposal of effluent.

(adapted from Bouma et al 1972)
27
It is only in recent times that factors relating to the soil and site conditions where
treatment systems are installed have become important with regard to system siting
and design. Previously, designs were reliant on simple percolation tests to evaluate
site suitability. However, in recent years, researchers have shown that the percolation
rate can be misleading and does not directly measure any soil characteristic that
could be used in the design of the subsurface disposal system (Healy and Laak 1974,
Gunn 1988). Consequently, site and soil related factors in the siting and design
process gaining significant importance. The various soil and site factors that play an
important role in selecting an appropriate system include:
topographic considerations, such as site elevation and slope;
subsurface considerations, including soil characteristics and profile, groundwater
pathways, water table depth and variability and the depth to the limiting
restrictive soil layer;
area available for treatment and disposal;
climatic conditions, such as rainfall and temperature;
flooding frequency; and
presence, location and distance to specific topographic features, such as
waterways or wells.
(Geary 1987, US EPA 1980, Siegrist et al 2000, Dawes and Goonetilleke 2003)
In order for treatment and disposal systems to accommodate the long term
acceptance of effluent, it is crucial that these factors are considered in the design and
siting. In determining site suitability for OWTS, understanding the soils ability to
accept, treat and disperse discharged effluent is crucial. Due to its heterogeneous
nature, the assessment of a single soil parameter cannot provide a comprehensive
overview of its suitability for a particular purpose (Diack and Stott 2001). As an
example, the simple soil permeability test traditionally used as a means of assessment
for effluent disposal, will indicate the soils ability to disperse effluent, but will not
show if the effluent will undergo sufficient treatment prior to percolating into the
groundwater. Therefore there is a crucial need for more scientifically rigorous
procedure for assessing soil suitability for sewage effluent renovation and the
removal of important pollutants.
28
2.3.1.1 Subsurface systems
The most common forms of subsurface treatment and dispersal systems in use in
Australia are soil adsorption trench or bed systems. Trenches are constructed as
shallow excavations with a single perforated pipe laid over gravel to evenly
distribute the applied effluent (US EPA 1980). A typical trench system is shown in
Figure 2.7. Soil absorption trenches are suitable where the soils are moderately
permeable and remain unsaturated for a reasonable depth below the surface
(Goonetilleke et al 1999).
Figure 2.7: Typical trench system used for effluent treatment and ultimate disposal.
Figure 2.8: Typical bed system used for effluent treatment and ultimate disposal.
Bed systems differ from trenches in that the use of more than one effluent
distribution pipe is provided over a wider area. A typical bed system is shown in
Figure 2.8. This distribution setup results in a smaller effective area necessary for
effluent distribution than that required for trench systems, making bed systems more
29
suitable for sites with restricted area. However, the same issue regarding treatment
ability also applies to bed systems.
Several other subsurface system alternatives are available for use in areas where the
typical trench and beds systems are considered inappropriate for providing adequate
treatment and dispersal of discharged effluent due to restrictions in site and soil
characteristics. These include:
Mound systems
Mound Systems are designed to overcome problems of treating and dispersing
partially treated effluent in areas where the soil has a relatively low permeability or
high ground water table, or where slowly permeable subsoils or subsoils overlying
cracked bedrock exist (Bouma et al 1972; Magdoff et al 1974). The general mound
system consists of an above grade soil adsorption system which relies on selected
sand fill and top soil layers to purify the discharged effluent (Converse and Tyler
1984, 1987, 1998).
Evapotranspiration systems
Evapotranspiration systems utilise the natural climatic conditions to evaporate
effluent from shallow trenches, combined with transpiration through the use of
vegetation specifically planted to utilise the available water and nutrients. However,
these systems are directly related to the climatic conditions. Evapotranspiration
Systems are receiving increasing recognition in Australia, primarily due to its
favourable climatic conditions which are necessary for the treatment and disposal of
effluent.
2.3.2 Surface Disposal
Surface disposal, also termed land application, of pretreated effluent refers to the
controlled application of effluent onto the land. This typically applies to effluent
from aerobic wastewater treatment systems, which is applied to the land surface in
order to achieve a further degree of purification and disposal. Surface disposal of
effluent is achieved via two main methods, either by spray irrigation through the use
30
of a sprinkler, or via shallow drip irrigation of effluent just below the soil surface.
The treatment involves similar purification mechanisms as for subsurface disposal.
However, the excess nutrients in the effluent supplied to the land surface allow rapid
vegetative growth, which aids in the treatment process. As the effluent passes
through the soil-plant matrix, the effluent is treated in two basic ways. A portion of
the effluent percolates through the soil, is purified and returns to the groundwater.
The remaining effluent is either evaporated or is used by the vegetation, which
transpire the wastewater to the atmosphere.
2.3.2.1 Implications
Traditionally, the design of effluent irrigation schemes has been based on the
hydraulic criteria, disregarding the soil chemistry, leachate and groundwater effects
(Balkau and Evans 1981). However, with the current increase in awareness relating
to public health and the environment, the design and operation of surface application
systems has come under scrutiny. In case of surface effluent disposal, irrigation of
lawns and gardens can be considered as the most feasible (Goonetilleke et al 1999).
However, various concerns relating to the use of surface application need to be
considered. The main concerns involving the land application of effluent include:
Land requirements
Operation and maintenance; and
Public Health and Environmental concerns
(Balkau and Evans 1981, US EPA 1981, Bouwer and Idelovitch 1987)
Land Requirement
Surface application of wastewater requires relatively large areas of land in order to
provide acceptable treatment quality and ultimate disposal. This is primarily related
to the application rates for the effluent, which in turn can be dependent upon several
other interrelated factors, including temperature, precipitation, evaporation,
vegetation, subsurface characteristics, and slope (US EPA 1981). Neglect of these
factors can result in hydraulic overloading and surface runoff could occur leading to
environmental and public health concerns.
31
Operation and Maintenance

The operation and maintenance of surface application systems can play a vital role in
the satisfactory treatment and disposal of effluent. Poor operation and maintenance
practices can invariably increase the risks associated with public health and the
environment. Proper disposal of effluent is dependent on two main factors. The
quality of the effluent, and the method or operation of the system used to apply the
effluent. Khaliffe and Dharmappa (1996) in an evaluation of 27 surface disposal
systems in Campbelltown City Council region in NSW found that only five systems,
or 19%, functioned appropriately. Common problems noted by Khaliffe and
Dharmappa (1996) were:
Inadequate land area and landscaping used for irrigation leading to hydraulic
overloading of the application area;
Application area being used for recreation and/or accessed by vehicles or
livestock;
Use of improper spray heads, causing erratic spray heights, increasing the
likelihood of aerial drift; and
Blocked spray heads by solids accumulation.
It is evident from the problems relating to the design, operation and maintenance of
surface disposal systems that stringent regulatory procedures need to be implemented
to safeguard against public health and environmental impacts.
Public Health and Environmental concerns

Public health is the most important consideration with regard to surface disposal of
effluent. This is primarily related to pathogens and the transmission of disease
through direct contact, inhalation of spray mist, and indirect spreading through food
crops and potable water (Balkau and Evans 1981). Research into the fate of
pathogenic organisms in relation to sewage disposal have shown that certain
pathogens can survive for extended periods of time depending on the ambient
conditions. Scherer (1982) has outlined the major environmental factors that affect
survival of pathogen organisms. These are:
32
Relative humidity - high humidity reduces droplet evaporation and organism die
off, allowing organisms to survive for longer periods.
Wind Speed - increases transport of pathogens through air
Sunlight - Ultra violet radiation from the sun will kill off microorganism
Temperature - increases in temperature can reduce the viability of organisms in
the air.
The issues relating to public health can mostly be overcome if the effluent is
satisfactorily disinfected (Goonetilleke et al 1999). Unfortunately, the incorporation
of disinfection, typically through the chlorination of effluent, as part of the effluent
treatment process is generally only utilised for AWTS. However, without adequate
maintenance and management, the disinfection process may have limited success in
achieving satisfactory treatment. This is related to the unreliability of the disinfection
process used and the wastewater treatment quality and treatment processes available.
Land application of effluent can also have detrimental impacts on the environment.
This is related primarily to the movement of nutrients (particularly nitrogen and
phosphorus) either into groundwater or surface water. These consequences are
influenced by factors such as insufficient land application area, high loading rates,
slope and consequently runoff potential in the surface application area (Kleene et al
1993). However, with suitable management and design of land application areas,
surface irrigation can be a suitable means of treatment and dispersal of effluent from
on-site systems (Kleene et al 1993).
The dispersal area is one of the most important components in the on-site wastewater
treatment train. Both subsurface and surface dispersal areas provide the final
treatment and dispersal of discharged effluent. Consequently, it is essential that the
dispersal area is adequately assessed to ensure that proper treatment and dispersal is
achieved without causing environmental and public health issues. However, although
the dispersal area is generally an acceptable means of providing suitable treatment
and dispersal of discharged effluent, the review of current literature indicated that
33
several performance issues can significantly influence overall performance. For

subsurface application, the main issues involve effluent quality from the on-site
system itself. Poor quality effluent can cause clogging of the soil pores, resulting in
hydraulic failure of the dispersal field. For surface irrigation systems, appropriate
assessment and management including effluent quality, applicable land area and
protection against environmental and public health impacts is needed. Therefore, in
order to ensure that proper treatment and dispersal of discharged effluent is achieved,
it is essential that these issues are adequately addressed.
2.4 Performance of On-site Systems
2.4.1 Performance Issues
The performance of on-site wastewater treatment systems imposes several critical

issues on the surrounding environment and the community. Improper on-site system
siting, design and operation can result in biological and chemical contamination of
water sources (Hagedorn et al 1981, Nichols et al 1997, Stevik et al 1999). In order
to address and manage the critical issues arising from the inadequate treatment
performance of on-site systems, due consideration of the various causes of failure is
essential in establishing suitable design and performance criteria. The issues that are
of importance with regard to the inadequate performance of on-site wastewater
treatment systems include:
Soils ability to renovate discharged effluent;
Contamination of the surrounding environment, including ground and surface
water;
Public health concerns;
Maintenance and management of on-site wastewater treatment systems.
The soil area used for effluent dispersal is of critical importance in the treatment of
discharged effluent. The performance of an on-site system is not only related to the
level of treatment produced by the treatment unit (septic tanks or aerobic treatment
systems), but is also dependent on the capability of the soil to treat the discharged
effluent percolating through the soil matrix. The soils renovation ability is a major
34
limiting factor in relation to OWTS. It must be noted that, although the soil is
expected to play a crucial role in the renovation of wastewater, it may have a limited
capability to achieve this. A very old system, for example, may function effectively
for the hydraulic processes of the disposal system, yet may only accomplish limited
purification. Therefore, its performance with respect to final treatment can be viewed
as inadequate (Siegrist et al 2000). It is therefore obvious that the subsurface soil
characteristics also need investigation before implying that a particular system is
appropriate for the specific site conditions.
Under suitable conditions, soil can be an effective effluent treatment medium, relying
on physical, chemical and biological processes to treat and dispose of the applied
effluent. Due to the presence of finer pores which provide relatively more contact
surface area for percolating effluent, clayey soils are generally better suited for
effluent treatment and disposal. However, both the amount and type of clay present
has a major influence on the ability of the soil to treat the effluent. Generally, the
purification potential increases as the clay content increases, but the probability of
clogging is also increased (Bouma 1974). The amount of clay is also significant as
higher percentages can be impermeable, preventing vertical infiltration of effluent.
As the effluent applied to the soil infiltrates through the soil medium, physico-
chemical and biological processes of sorption, filtration and microbiological
decomposition help in purifying the partially treated effluent, before it reaches
groundwater (Miller and Wolf 1975; Van Cuyk et al 2001).
The process of sorption, or the binding of one substance to another, occurs through
one of three mechanisms:
1. Absorption: a substance is totally taken in by another by molecular or

chemical attraction.
2. Adsorption: a substance is bound to the surface of another.
3. Persorption: adsorption of substances in pores only slightly wider than the
diameter of the adsorbed molecule.
(Miller and Wolf 1975; Ellis 1973)
35
The sorption processes in soil are beneficial for the renovation of effluent, provided
the soil profile is suitable. The soils pore spaces posses a great ability for sorption of
suspended solids and dissolved substances due to the electrostatic charges and
chemically active surfaces available. Therefore, soil adsorption ability is reliant most
significantly on the type of soil and its respective cation exchange capacity (CEC),
which in turn is dependent on the amount and type of clay present in the soil and the
amount of organic matter. CEC is basically a measure of the soil particles ability to
exchange cations with freely mobile cations added to the soil matrix, in this
particular case those associated with percolating effluent (Borden and Giese 2001,
Manahan 2000). Therefore, if the soil has a low CEC, it will not have a strong ability
to adsorb pollutants, and will rely wholly on filtration and microbiological
decomposition processes. On the other hand, soils with a high CEC will have
excellent adsorption ability, and provide suitable effluent renovation, providing the
effluent can physically percolate through the soil. Clayey soils generally retain
greater sorption ability due to the smaller size of the clay particles, and hence provide
a greater, more active adsorption area. Clay soil particles which have a coating of
iron, aluminium and hydrous oxides have exceptional sorption ability. The
electrostatic properties of soils with high clay content, as well as organics, provide a
good CEC which is capable of sorbing ionic and biological material, commonly
contained within the percolating effluent (Miller and Wolf 1975).
Additionally, the generic properties of the soil matrix provide an effective medium
for filtering out solid material from wastewater. This includes suspended solids and
organic material. Soil contains numerous microorganisms which multiply rapidly
with the extra nutrients provided through the effluent. The abundance of
microorganisms in the soil aid in the filtering process by removing organics and
nutrients. As such, the filtration capacity of the soil not only serves to remove
suspended solids, but also to retain microorganisms to provide the biological
treatment necessary for both dissolved and suspended organics (Miller and Wolf
1975)
One of the important issues relating to the filtration ability of the soil is the formation
of a clogging layer or biomat. The biomat is composed of microorganisms living off
the organic material percolating through the soil. The formation of the biomat occurs
36
when bacterial growth and their by-products, and accumulated solids reduce soil pore
diameters resulting in the reduction of the soil infiltration capacity. Soil absorption
systems often fail hydraulically due to clogging and subsequent reduction in
infiltration through the soil at the soil-gravel interface (Bishop and Logsdon 1981,
Kristiansen 1981).
However, even though the formation of the biomat is considered a major problem for
the soil adsorption area, it can also be beneficial. The infiltrative capacity of the
clogging mat has been shown to reach an equilibrium state after a certain period of
time (Allison 1947, Jones and Taylor 1965, Otis 1984). As such, effluent will still be
able to seep through the layer, but at a much lower rate. The development of this
zone can enhance purification by increasing bio-geochemical reactions within the
zone, as well as creating unsaturated conditions beneath it due to the reduced
permeability rate below the biomat.
2.4.2 On-site System density
The density of on-site systems (or number of systems per unit area) and the issue of
whether higher densities of OWTS cause adverse environmental and public health
impacts remains an issue of debate. Several studies have investigated water quality
near higher densities of OWTS, but to date none have provided significant proof
towards how many systems in a particular area will cause detrimental impacts.
Perkins (1984) and Yates (1985) both investigated the effect of high OWTS densities
on groundwater, and found that increased densities do increase the potential for
groundwater contamination, particularly in relation to nitrogen. However, the effect
of increased densities on nitrate contamination of groundwater is not a linear process
(Perkins 1984).
There are several factors that influence the potential for contamination due to high
densities of systems, including the soil type, the type of system used, depth to the
water table, as well as the general performance of the systems themselves. Typically,
areas of major concern are developments on sandy soils with limited renovation
ability, with a shallow or perched groundwater aquifer (Lawrence et al 2001). A
37
more recent study undertaken by Borchardt et al (2003) between septic system

density and infectious diseases in children found that an increase in gastrointestinal
disease outbreaks where higher in areas that had higher septic system densities than
those with lower densities. However, the main reason for the increased outbreaks
was caused by surface exposure to effluent (from poorly functioning or non-
maintained systems) rather than through consumption of contaminated water supplies
(Borchardt et al 2003).
2.4.3 Failure Consequences
2.4.3.1 Failure
The failure of on-site wastewater treatment systems is an issue that needs adequate
recognition in order to prevent the possible ecological and public health hazards that
may develop. Unfortunately, due to the lack of management and experience in the
siting, design and operation of on-site systems, failure has become all too common
(Goonetilleke and Dawes 2001). Table 2.3 highlights the more common failure
scenarios related to OWTS. On-site wastewater treatment systems have shown they
are capable of adequately treating and disposing of effluent over a 15 to 20 year life
time if they are correctly designed, installed and maintained (Hodges 2001, Sewards
and Fimmel 1983). Unfortunately, the widely accepted flush and forget attitude has
proven to be a major problem. Generally, operation and management of on-site
wastewater treatment and disposal systems has often resulted in poor performance
and disposal of effluent (Charles et al 2001). This is due in part to the traditional
management and inconsistent monitoring and maintenance processes whereby
numerous assumptions have been applied to the siting, design and installation of
OWTS with little consideration given to the long-term performance of the system
(Hoover 1998).
Proper performance of on-site wastewater treatment systems depends on the ability

of the soil to renovate and transmit wastewater. Failure occurs if either of these
functions is not adequately achieved (Reneau Jr. et al 1989). According to Kenway
and Irvine (2001), of the 284,000 on-site sewage facilities that currently exist in
NSW, approximately 50-90% have failed or are performing inefficiently. Research
38
studies undertaken by (Goonetilleke et al 2002; Goonetilleke et al 2000a,b) produced

similar results with failure rates of 70-90% for on-site wastewater treatment systems
located in Brisbane, Logan and the Gold Coast regions. According to the US EPA
(1996), failing septic systems is the second leading cause of surface and groundwater
pollution in the United States, and is also the most frequently reported cause of
groundwater contamination (Hoxley and Dudding 1994, Nicosia et al 2001, Perkins
1984; US EPA 1996, Yates 1985). However, the definition of what actually
constitutes failure has proven to be contentious (Dix and May 1997).
Table 2.3: Failure Scenarios associated with OWTS
Failure Scenario Resulting Consequences
Sewage ponding on ground surface near subsurface system or leakage

Hydraulic Failure of OWTS on slopes; sewage pipe blockage and backup into pipes and fixtures;
Elevated nitrate levels in drinking water sources; taste or odour

problems in drinking water caused by untreated, poorly treated, or
partially treated wastewater; presence of toxic substances (e.g.
Groundwater and surface solvents, cleaners) in water source
water contamination with
chemical pollutants Algal blooms, high aquatic plant productivity, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations in nearby freshwater and marine water bodies
Shellfish bed bacterial contamination; recreational areas contaminated

Microbial contamination of
due to high bacterial levels; contamination of down-gradient drinking
ground and surface water
water wells with faecal bacteria or viruses
The term failure associated with on-site wastewater treatment systems has been
loosely used throughout literature to describe major faults associated with on-site
systems, including effluent surfacing, as depicted in Figure 2.11 and odour or
mechanical malfunctions. However, with the current move towards the adoption of
risk-based assessment of OWTS, the definition of failure needs to be defined in
terms of the resultant hazards and exposure scenarios.
In relation to ecological hazards, failure refers to the inability of on-site treatment

systems to provide adequate treatment and disposal of sewage, resulting in the
increased release of contaminants, causing adverse conditions in the environment,
such as eutrophication of waterways. In similar circumstances, hazards relating to
39
Figure 2.11: Effluent surfacing evident of on-site system failure
public health concerns associate failure of OWTS with the consequences of

increased pathogen numbers in public areas resulting from the inability of OWTS to
provide satisfactory removal of pathogenic organisms. In relation to ecological
hazards, failure refers to the inability of on-site treatment systems to provide
adequate treatment and disposal of sewage, resulting in the increased release of
contaminants, causing adverse conditions in the environment, such as eutrophication
of waterways. In similar circumstances, hazards relating to public health concerns
associate failure of OWTS with the consequences of increased pathogen numbers in
public areas resulting from the inability of on-site treatment systems to provide
satisfactory removal of pathogenic organisms. Similarly, the hazards created from
the inadequate siting, design, operation and management of OWTS, such as
hydraulic overloading, effluent surfacing and infrequent pump outs also bring to light
the various failures that need to be adequately addressed. Any treatment system can
be deemed as failing if it allows harmful pollutants to accumulate to dangerous levels
in the receiving environment (Otis et al 1974).
Failure of on-site treatment facilities, as defined by the NSW Septic9Safe program

(Brown and Root Services 2001), occurs when an unacceptable level of contaminants
is released from the facility, including the land application area, to either
groundwater or surface water pathways in the natural environment. As such, the
movement of contaminants from on-site facilities will constitute a hazard to
downstream receptors when they build up to high levels (Brown and Root Services
2001). These hazards generally relate to concerns involving ecological and public
health issues.
40
The reason for these different views on failure is that on-site treatment systems have
generally been installed and maintained according to the specified performance
based criteria without taking into account all possible scenarios and outcomes related
to inadequate on-site treatment and disposal of sewage. The failure of on-site
wastewater treatment systems to treat and dispose of wastewater safely is not due to
the inherent shortcomings of the systems themselves, as they can be very safe and
effective when properly utilised. Failure results more from the misapplication and
misuse of the system itself (Otis et al 1974). This is primarily a result of the lack of
direct control and routine by the householder and also the lack of proper regulations
for controlling on-site wastewater treatment systems (Butler and Payne 1995).
The risks emerging from the inherent hazards imposed by the failure of on-site
systems need to be adequately assessed to allow appropriate management techniques
to be adopted in order to control and minimise their impacts. Unfortunately, this has
not been sufficiently addressed for on-site wastewater treatment systems. Some risk
assessments have been achieved through a qualitative approach in order to provide a
toolbox for assessing the risks associated with on-site systems. However, these do
not have the scientific depth needed to minimise the uncertainty associated with risk
assessment. As such, it is necessary for a scientific based quantitative risk assessment
be undertaken for on-site systems, not only to incorporate the scientific data to
reduce the uncertainty, but also to provide adequate recognition of the major
environmental and public health implications that urgently need addressing.
With the evolving risk-based criteria, it is essential that these different terms of
failure are recognised, and integrated accordingly. There is a definite link between
risk and failure specifically relating to the hazards imposed from the various failure
mechanisms of on-site treatment systems. It is therefore appropriate to characterise
failure as a mechanism for inducing hazards, and therefore define failure in terms of
the hazards resulting from inadequate operation and management of on-site
wastewater treatment systems.
41
2.4.3.2 Public Health
Public health is the most important concern related to wastewater treatment. Public
health is generally concerned with pathogens and the possibility of disease resulting
from contact with pathogenic organisms. It is significant to note that the majority of
pathogens that affect human health originate from human wastes. Illness caused by
pathogenic organisms can occur from direct or indirect contact, mainly via
contaminated water sources. Various contact mechanisms include:
maintenance of on-site systems;
surfacing of effluent at individual sites;
recreational activities, such as swimming or boating in polluted waters;
drinking or using water from wells, bores or other surface water; and
eating food crops that have been irrigated with treated effluent.
There is a wide variety of pathogens that can be found in water supplies, including
bacteria, viruses, protozoa and helminths (Lawrence et al 2001). Typical pathogens
related to wastewater are listed in Table 2.4. These can have varying impacts on the
human population, ranging from diseases such as Typhoid and Dysentery, to more
severe viral outbreaks, such as Hepatitis A. It has been documented that pathogens
can survive for extended periods in groundwater, and can travel outside the
prescribed buffer zones of the treatment systems. The consequence of this occurring
can be severe, and even fatal. Yates (1985) noted that approximately 50% of
waterborne disease outbreaks in the USA were a result of consumption of
contaminated groundwater, with septic tanks reported as the most frequent cause of
contamination. The US EPA has estimated that approximately 200,000 cases of
illness and 10,000 cases of water body impairment are reported each year due to
contamination, with septic tanks considered as the second main cause of
contamination (US EPA 1996).
One of the recent Australian cases relating to public health issues resulting from the
failure of on-site systems was the Ryan versus Great Lakes Shire Council court case
(Ryan 1999). The consumption of contaminated oysters from Wallis Lake in NSW
led to an outbreak of viral Hepatitis A. The contamination of oysters with Hepatitis A
was linked to failing on-site wastewater treatment systems in the Lakes vicinity
42
(Ryan 1999). This underlies the important need to have a means of assessing the
siting, design and management of on-site wastewater treatment systems in general,
before the inherent risks are at a level that may cause severe consequences.
Unfortunately, the processes and mechanisms for studying contaminant fate and
transport have not received adequate attention, with few research studies being
conducted in this area (Lipp et al 2001, Siegrist and Van Cuyk 2001).
Table 2.4: List of pathogens commonly found in wastewater that can cause illness
(adapted from Lawrence et al 2001)
Pathogen Source Disease
Viruses
Hepatitis A virus Human faeces Infectious hepatitis
Polioviruses Human faeces Poliomyelitis (best
controlled through
vaccination)
Astrovirus, Calcivirus, Human faeces Diarrhoeal diseases
Rotaviruses, Norwalk-
type viruses
Coxsackieviruses and Human faeces Diarrhoeal diseases
Echoviruses
Bacteria
Campylobacter jejuni Human and animal Diarrhoeal diseases
faeces
Enterohaemorrhagic Human and animal Hemorrhagic colitis
E. coli 0157 faeces
Enteroinvasive E. coli Human faeces Diarrhoeal diseases
Enteropathogenic E. Human faeces Diarrhoeal diseases
coli
Enterotoxigenic E. coli Human faeces Diarrhoeal diseases
Salmonella typhi Human faeces and urine Typhoid fever
Shigellae spp. Human faeces Dysentery
Vibrio cholerae 01 Human faeces Cholera
Protozoan Parasites
Cryptosporidium spp. Human and animal Diarrhoeal diseases
faeces
Giardia lamblia Human and animal Diarrhoeal diseases
faeces
In addition to the pathogenic contaminants, chemical contaminants may also cause

specific public health issues. Specific to on-site wastewater treatment, nitrate is the
most conspicuous contaminant due to its solubility in water, and also its relatively
free movement through the subsoil. Nitrate is the most stable form of nitrogen where
there is an adequate supply of oxygen. As such, the most efficient means of reducing
contamination is dilution in the groundwater. However, nitrate contamination
43
problems may not become obvious immediately, and where large nitrate
concentrations are discharged to the groundwater, long term impacts are a significant
problem. The most significant public health concerns related to nitrogen is the
development of methaemaglobinamenia (blue baby syndrome) in young children,
development of carcinogenic nitrosamines (cancerous cells) and also cyanosis, a fatal
animal disease (Bouwer and Idelovitch 1987). However, debate over whether nitrate
is a public health concern remains an issue. Nitrate is considered as being a critical
contaminant in relation to both environmental and public health impacts, and water
quality standards set restrictive values for nitrate. However, whether nitrate can be
considered as a critical contamination in relation to public health is debateable
(Patterson 2003). For instance, a 10 mg/L of NO3--N threshold is set for drinking
water. However, common editable foods, such as lettuce, beetroot and spinach can
have nitrate values in excess of 1000mg/L (LHirondel and LHirondel 2002). The
link between nitrate and methaemaglobinamenia was first noted by Comly (1945)
who reported on two cases in which he stated that methaemaglobinamenia may be
associated with high nitrate levels in drinking water and gastrointestinal disturbance.
Subsequently, it has since been found that high nitrate levels in drinking water are
typically also associated with microbiological contamination of the water (Fan et al
1987). More recent research has shown that nitrate by itself is not a public health
concern, but the onset of various illnesses linked with nitrate, such as nitrosamines
and in particular methaemaglobinamenia, is associated with a number of factors that
occur simultaneously in conjunction with the consumption of drinking water with
high nitrate levels (Avery 1999, Fewtrell 2004).
2.4.3.3 Environmental Issues
The main issue regarding environmental impacts is the potential for eutrophication of
waterways. Eutrophication is the process in which oxygen concentrations in surface
water is depleted through the decomposition of the excess nutrients by bacteria and
algae (Rubin and Carlile 1991). This deprives fish and other organisms of oxygen,
resulting in increased mortality of organisms and unhealthy waterways. The elevated
nutrient levels can stimulate favourable conditions for algae and other water
organisms to rapidly multiply, resulting in massive blooms (Harman et al 1996). This
44
can be a public health issue in some cases, particularly if the algae are toxic to
humans, such as the common blue green algae, or the more serious Pfiesteria, which
produces a toxin which can cause brain damage and organ failure if inhaled.
Unfortunately, there have been limited studies undertaken to investigate the fate and
transport of discharged effluent in groundwater. Limited studies have also been
directed towards investigating the effect of contaminant transport between
groundwater and surface water, which is of particular concern to coastal
communities and areas that are environmentally sensitive (Harris 1995, Paul 1997,
Paul 2000). In areas with shallow freshwater systems, groundwater may easily be
contaminated from on-site systems which are typically installed close to the water
table. This situation is compounded during periods of high rainfall, which may cause
flooding resulting in desorption of contaminants due to saturated conditions, which
will then travel through the soil into the groundwater. The transport of pollutants
from on-site systems can also be a significant source of contamination to the marine
environment, especially in areas of restricted circulation, such as an estuary or small
embayment (Corbett et al 2001).
2.4.4 Fate and Transport of Contaminants
Effluent discharged from on-site wastewater treatment systems contains specific

physical, chemical and biological constituents which can contaminate the
surrounding environment if not reduced to a safe level. The risks imposed by the
release of these contaminants are significant. Typically, the transport of pollutants
from septic systems occurs via groundwater flow, due to the use of soil absorption
systems as the final treatment and ultimate disposal medium for discharged effluent.
The processes and mechanisms that the soil uses to purify effluent can achieve a
relatively high level of purification, but it will not ensure the total removal of these
contaminants. Therefore, it is inevitable that a certain concentration of nutrients and
pathogens will reach groundwater, travelling along available pathways to the
receptors at risk. However, if the soil absorption field fails, surfacing of effluent may
occur, with fate and transportation of nutrients and pathogens reliant on surface and
climatic conditions. Surface runoff will then inevitably be a major transportation
45
process for contaminants. Surface runoff is also the major transport process of
contaminants from surface disposal systems. Typical pathways for contaminant
transport related to the hazards imposed on public health and the surrounding
environment are shown in Figure 2.12. The consequences of the use of contaminated
water can range from individual or site specific concerns, such as isolated outbreaks
of disease, to contamination problems affecting a whole community, such as major
disease outbreaks. Numerous reports of disease outbreaks have been reported
throughout the literature, covering both isolated events and severe outbreaks. For
example, 781 persons attending a Washington County fair became ill after
consuming beverages made using contaminated groundwater from a nearby well. It
was determined that the groundwater was being polluted from a nearby septic system
(Cliver 2000). The outbreak of Hepatitis A at Great Lakes, New South Wales (Ryan
1999), as a result of poorly maintained septic systems is another example of public
health risks associated with on-site wastewater treatment systems.
Figure 2.12: Typical pathways of contaminant transport related to hazards imposed

by on-site wastewater treatment systems
In order to apply a safety net around on-site wastewater treatment systems, set back
distances are typically specified, where it is implied that the inherent risks imposed
by pathogenic organisms and chemical contaminants that do travel further than these
adopted distances are significantly lower. Direct correlation between reduced
contaminant concentrations and pathogenic numbers with distance provide evidence
of this fact (Arnade 1999). It is conventional practice to overcome the potential risk
of groundwater contamination leading to deterioration of downstream environments
and public health concerns from septic tank effluent by specifying a minimum set-
back distance between the disposal area and potable water supply (Beavers and
46
Gardner 1993).Typical specified distances are in the range of 15 30m for wells and
100m from a perennial stream or waterway. However, this is dependent on the soil
conditions at each site, and therefore these distances can vary (Viraraghavan 1978,
Beavers and Gardner 1993). Corbett et al (2002) noted in their study on nutrient
concentrations from three on-site treatment systems, that by increasing the currently
adopted setback distance of 23m by an extra 50m, a 50% reduction of remaining
contaminants, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus was possible. This reduction
would also be dependent on the soil conditions present at the site. However, set back
distances have also proved ineffective in numerous cases. A study undertaken by
Robertson et al (1991) on contaminant plumes in groundwater from two single
family homes on shallow unconfined sand aquifers, found that a plume of NO3- and
Na+ had travelled 150m away from the effluent discharge point. At a sampling well
located two kilometres away, concentrations of nitrate and sodium were also found,
although concentrations were only one quarter of the allowable drinking water
standard. This does, however, highlight the fact that contaminants are capable of
travelling much further than typically expected. With the environmental concerns
relating to the release of nitrogen and phosphorus into groundwater and ultimately
surface water, and public health aspects related to the release of pathogenic
organisms, more detailed discussions of the fate and transport of these pollutants are
given below.
2.4.4.1 Nitrogen
Effluent discharged from septic tanks commonly consists of 80% ammonium-N

(NH4+-N) and 20% organic N (Canter and Knox 1991, Gold and Sims 2000). On-site
treatment systems can typically remove around 20% of the nitrogen contained in the
effluent depending on the specific site related factors, such as soil, topography and
climate (Siegrist and Jenssen 1989). Anaerobic conditions generally prevail in septic
tanks, which provide excellent conditions for organic-N to be transformed into NH4+-
N. Once in the soil, naturally occurring bacteria use the available organic-N and
NH4+-N, oxidising it to nitrites and nitrates. Nitrification is a two step process which
requires sufficient oxygen (aerobic environment) in order to occur. The first step of
nitrification involves autotrophic bacteria (Nitrosomas or Mixotrophic) which
47
convert ammonium to nitrite in the following manner (Van Loosdrecht and Jetten
1998):

NO2 + 2 H + + H 2 O
NH 4 + 1.5O2 (2.1)
Following this, heterotrophic bacteria (Nitrobacter) transform the nitrites to nitrates

(Van Loosdrecht and Jetten 1998):

NO2 + 0.5O2
NO3 (2.2)
Nitrites are easily oxidised to nitrates, and therefore are not typically found in large
concentrations, particularly in ground and surface waters. Nitrates, on the other hand,
are the most mobile form of nitrogen, and tend to move easily through the soil and
groundwater. Nitrates are therefore one of the major contaminants associated with
discharged effluent from on-site treatment systems, and are considered a major
contributor to eutrophication due to its high mobility. In order to remove the nitrates,
denitrification must occur. Denitrification will follow nitrification if an anaerobic
environment is present where NO3- will replace O2 as an electron receptor for
facultative aerobic or straight anaerobic dentrifiers (Pseudomonas or
Achromobacter), which converts nitrates to nitrogen gas (Van Loosdrecht and Jetten
1998):
Not Strictly Anaerobic :

HNO 2 + NH 2 OH NH 3
2 HNO3 2 HNO2 NO2 NHOH (2.3)
Strictly Anearobic Bacteria :
N2 0 N2
For denitrification to take place, a sufficient amount of carbon must be present. The
carbon provides the electron donor required for the transformation to nitrogen gas.
These processes are significant in removing the nitrates from the effluent.
Unfortunately, this rarely occurs on a significant scale as although the soil
environment provides adequate aerobic conditions for nitrification, denitrification is
48
difficult. Unless the soil is saturated for a long period, anaerobic conditions will
generally not exist, except directly below the soil absorption system in the first few
centimetres of soil. As such, excess amounts of nitrates are able to freely move
through the soil structure into groundwater if the nitrates are not nitrified within this
thin layer of soil. This is a major environmental concern relating to the discharge of
effluent. In the case of aerobic wastewater treatment systems, nitrification occurs
inside the aerobic unit itself. Therefore, discharged effluent already contains a high
level of nitrates, which is a cause for concern. However, as effluent is surface
irrigated, most effluent is treated in the top soil layer where most nutrients are
available for uptake by vegetation and microorganisms.
2.4.4.2 Phosphorus
Concentrations of phosphorus typically found in sewage effluent (~ 25 mg/L) are far

in excess of what is found in the natural environment. This is mainly due to the levels
of phosphorus in detergents and other household cleaning products commonly
disposed in wastewater. The amount of phosphorus (< 0.02 mg/L) required to
stimulate algae growth in aquatic environments is also far below typical
concentrations found in effluent (Robertson et al 1998, Hesketh and Brookes 2000).
There are presently no drinking water standards or regulatory upper limits
established for phosphate concentrations, primarily because phosphorus is not a
direct public health threat (Gold and Sims 2000). However, phosphorus is well
known to have many undesirable impacts on aquatic ecosystems, as it, along with
nitrogen, contributes to the eutrophication of waterways, which in turn can have a
significant impact on human and animal health (Gold and Sims 2000).
In general, the digestion processes established in on-site treatment systems convert

most of the phosphorus into soluble orthophosphates. This form of phosphorus is
therefore able to move through aqueous regions, such as saturated soil, and ground
and surface waters. However, due to its high exchangeability and reactivity with soil
and chemical particles, phosphorus is generally retained in the soil. Once released
into the soil, phosphorus undergoes various physical and chemical reactions. Firstly,
adsorption to available exchange sites on soil particles is readily achieved. Typically,
49
phosphorus undergoes two sorption processes; fast sorption and slow ironic reaction.
Fast sorption processes are generally confined to the sorption of phosphorus ions to
the surfaces of soil physical and chemical elements. Generally, this occurs on the
clay and organic matter particles. The slower, ionic reactions between phosphorus
and chemical elements, such as aluminium, iron and calcium also occur, typically
below the surface of the individual particles (McGechan and Lewis 2002). The pH of
the soil can influence these chemical processes significantly. Soils that have a lower
pH generally have higher levels of aluminium and iron available which enhances
these slower ionic reactions. Similarly for soils with higher pH, more calcium is
generally available in the soil for these reactions to occur. However, even though
phosphorus is relatively less mobile than nitrogen and is considered as not being a
major concern, phosphorus is still able to move into groundwater, generally over a
much longer time period than nitrogen. As such, it is important to consider
phosphorus as a possible hazard to water quality.
2.4.4.3 Pathogens
As public health aspects are concerned with the contamination of potable water by
bacteriological, viral and protozoan parasite contaminants, attention is needed
relating to their fate and transport through the soil media and into groundwater.
Unfortunately, this has not been adequately addressed to date (Scandura and Sobsey
1997). Deborde et al (1998) highlighted several reasons for this, including:
Human bacterial viral sources are present in faecal waste only when the source
population is infected, requiring frequent sampling of sources over long periods
of times, such as individual septic systems;
There are many different types of pathogens that pose significant risk to public
health;
Assay techniques for human pathogenic viruses are complex, costly, and even
non-existent for particular virus strains; and
Injecting pathogens into an aquifer for research purposes, such as for researching
fate and transport processes, is extremely difficult if not impossible.
50
The use of surface irrigation is also a significant concern, as the effluent is required
to undergo disinfection prior to irrigation. This is generally achieved via chlorination
of the effluent. As such, provided the effluent has been satisfactorily disinfected, the
release of pathogens via surface irrigation will be minimal. However, if disinfection
is not achieved, potential issues related to public health are raised. The risk of
pathogens entering surface waters is a concern, mainly in relation to overland flow.
In periods of dry weather, sunlight can effectively irradiate any pathogens escaping
the disinfection process. However, periods of high rain pose the greatest concern.
Relating to subsurface soil treatment of effluent, pathogenic organisms are removed

by one of four mechanisms; filtration, adsorption, microbial interaction or survival
time (Laak 1986). These processes are influenced by the various factors including
soil texture, composition and organic levels, pH, moisture content, temperature and
competition from other organisms (Miller and Wolf 1975). As such, the mobility of
pathogens in soil is greatly influenced by the size and type of the given pathogen.
The main concern relating to pathogenic fate and transportation is the moisture
condition of the soil. Where an adequate depth of soil is available which is not
influenced by shallow groundwater conditions, the soil will provide a suitable
medium for effluent purification. However, the inability of soil to treat effluent as it
percolates through the soil during the wet season, or due to high ground water
fluctuations, results in groundwater contamination, thus posing a health risk to those
who use groundwater as a potable water supply (Arnade 1999). On-site treatment
systems located in coastal communities, or in areas with fluctuating water tables or
shallow ground are of prime concern. Unfortunately, limited work has been
undertaken on near shore surface water where high densities of on-site systems are
present (Lipp et al 2001).
Saturated conditions may be beneficial for denitrification, but the mechanisms for
removing pathogens; filtration and absorption, is substantially limited. This allows
pathogens to freely move through the soil and into the groundwater, eventually
returning to surface water. As such, it is of critical importance to assess the
suitability of sites for potential groundwater issues. This can also be problematic near
51
coastal regions, or in wet/dry seasons due to the fluctuations occurring in watertable

levels or groundwater.
The presence of cracks caused by insects and mammals living in the soil or by the
shrink/swell properties of the clay under changing moisture conditions in the soil,
can also affect the transportation of microorganisms through the soil matrix. This
will short-circuit the movement of effluent through the soil, without providing any
treatment whatsoever.
Another important aspect related to the fate and transport of pathogens is the
selection of an adequate indicator of faecal contamination that can successfully
represent the pathogens of concern, and allow satisfactory analysis of their transport
and fate in the environment. Currently, total coliforms, faecal coliforms, E.coli and
enterococci are the primary indicators used in water quality and risk assessments of
faecal contamination (Meays 2004). Due to the large number of viruses and bacteria
that are present both in the wastewater and naturally occurring in the soil and water
sources, it is not possible to reliably predict the fate and transport of pathogens in the
subsurface environment by utilising a common faecal indicator (Yates 1985).
Additionally, these common indicators are present in the intestines and faecal matter
of all warm-blooded mammals, including wildlife, livestock and humans (Hagedorn
1999, Whitlock et al 2002, Meays 2004). Consequently, the source of most faecal
contamination can be a cumulative contribution from a variety of source hosts,
making it difficult to accurately assess the potential public health impact resulting
from faecal contamination. Additionally, faecal bacteria and coliforms are not
reliable indicators of viruses due to physical differences between bacteria and viruses
(Deborde et al 1998). However, as faecal indicator bacteria are much easier and less
costly to detect and enumerate than the pathogens themselves, their use as a means of
assessing the faecal contamination will remain common.
Recently, the use of Bacterial Source Tracing (BST) methods have shown promising
results in sourcing faecal contamination. Essentially, the various sources of faecal
contamination are identified by comparing unknown sources of bacteria or viruses to
a library of known sources (Hagedorn et al 1999, Wiggins 1999, Meays et al 2004).
These methods make it possible to separate certain bacteriological and viral
52
microorganisms into host specific sources (such as human, domestic and wild
animal), allowing a more accurate indication of the source of the faecal
contamination. This information is extremely beneficial as with the identification of
specific sources of faecal contamination, better management of these sources can be
achieved. Additionally, more accurate risk assessments for public health and
environmental hazards can be undertaken once the source of contamination is
known.
Several attempts at BST methods have been trialed in recent years with some success
(Hagedorn et al 1999, Meays et al 2004) These included the ratio of faecal coliform
to faecal streptococci (Sinton et al 1993); and proportions of thermotolerant
coliforms to faecal sterols (coprostanol and 24-ethylcoprostanol) (Leeming et al
1998). Recent BST methods have shown to provide more accurate species
differentiation. The use of molecular methods such as genetic makeup profiles of
specific bacteria isolates, including ribotyping (Parveen et al 1999); random
amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) (Parveen et al 1999, Tynkkynen et al 1999);
rep-PCR DNA extraction methods (Dombeck et al 2000) and reverse transcriptase
PCR (Hager 2001), have successfully been used to differentiate sources of both
bacteria and viruses. Unfortunately, the main disadvantage of molecular BST
methods is the high cost and longer time period required to obtain the necessary
information needed for differentiation. Additionally, the use of physiological
characteristics of bacteria have been used in biochemical BST techniques, such as
Antibiotic Resistance Patterns (ARP) in order to differentiate sources of faecal
bacteria which have been successful at determining sources of faecal indicators
(Whitlock et al 2002).
Although BST methods enable the identification of the various sources of faecal
contamination, the ability to accurately predict the fate and transportation of
pathogens is still lacking. As such, indicators are the only means to date that have
been successful in providing information on pathogen fate and transportation. This
can also be misleading as the fate and transport of bacteria, viruses and protozoans
can be significantly different.
53
A. Fate and Transport of Bacteria

Due to the large number of naturally occurring microorganisms in soil, it is difficult
to select a specific species as a standard indicator (Canter and Knox 1991). This is a
main reason for the limited research on the transport of bacteria through the
subsurface environment. Selected bacterial indicators may not provide an adequate
representation of the pathogen of concern. Many microorganisms are needed to
renovate the chemical contaminants discharged to the soil. However, it is the disease
causing organisms which are of concern.
In principle, the transport and fate of microorganisms is dependent on the properties

and mechanisms associated with the soil matrix to which effluent is applied. The
depth of soil between the bottom of the absorption bed, the groundwater, and the
soils physical and chemical makeup are the most important aspects for bacteria
removal. The primary mechanisms for removal of these organisms are the adsorption
of bacteria to soil particles and chemical constituents, removal by filtration and die
off. Research literature has noted that a distance of at least 1.0m is needed to provide
sufficient unsaturated soil depth for removal of bacteria (US EPA 1980, Parker and
Carbon 1981, Jones et al 2000). Die-off is dependent primarily on the type of
bacteria, as rates vary for different bacteria (Wellings et al 1974). Saturated
conditions can also increase the survival times of bacteria. Field experiments using
strains of antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli were conducted by Rahe et al (1978) to
evaluate the effects of saturation of a typical absorption field and the transport of E.
coli once saturated. Movement of the E. coli at rates of 1.5m/day were reported, with
survival rates of up to 96 hours being evident. The primary reason for the high
movement and survival times were linked to the saturated conditions of the soil.
Therefore, it is evident that soils with higher water tables, or which are continually
saturated are at a greater risk of contamination than those with adequate unsaturated
soils.
The ability of soil to adsorb bacteria is affected by various factors. Firstly, the Cation
Exchange Capacity (CEC) of the individual soil particles is important as these are the
primary adsorption sites. As such, with clay being the most reactive constituent, the
type of clay and the available surface charges they possess are significantly
important. Organic matter also contains high CEC and electrostatic charges which
54
makes organic matter viable adsorption sites. However, the organic matter is
typically contained in the surface soil or A horizon which may be of little
significance in shallow soils or if the discharge point of the effluent is below this
horizon.
B. Fate and Transport of Viruses

Although bacteria and viruses pose significant potential public health risks, viruses
differ from bacteria in one important aspect. They are not cells but obligate
intracellular parasites that are incapable of replication outside a host organism
(Beavers and Gardner 1993). Viruses are also significantly smaller than bacteria
cells, making filtration an impractical mechanism for removal. As such, the main
mechanisms for virus removal are adsorption to the soil particles, and die-off of the
viral cells. The mechanism of adsorption of virus cells is generally the same as for
bacteria, primarily relating to the soils structure and constituents, with primary
emphasis on the electrostatic charges of the individual soil particles. Virus transport
in unsaturated porous media is distinguished from transport in saturated media,
because sorption and inactivation are considerably influenced by soil moisture
content and subsurface temperature fluctuations (Sim and Chrysikopoulos 2000).
Consequently, the only mechanism left to prevent virus survival is die-off if
conditions reduce the effectiveness of the mechanism of adsorption taking place,
such as saturation, shallow ground water or just poor soil conditions. A study
undertaken by Nicosia et al (2001) on two field sites for assessing the removal of
bacteriophage PRD1 from septic tank effluent found specific fate and transport
patterns in drain fields were significantly influenced by rainfall effects, which aided
in desorption of viruses from the soil. They also noted that the main mechanisms
contributing to virus attenuation included inactivation and dilution or dispersion.
The major variable in determining virus inactivation is time. Clearly, the longer a
virus persists in the environment, the greater the risk of infection when it reaches
groundwater (Beavers and Gardner 1993). It must be noted however, that the
survival of virus in soil is directly related to the type of virus (Wellings et al 1974).
Viruses have been found to persist in saturated conditions for up to 120 days, but
typically virus survival times is generally in the range of 20-40 days (US EPA 1980).
55
Sandy soils adsorb viruses poorly, thus allowing extensive migration into shallow
ground water (Scandura and Sobsey 1997). This also relates to how far a virus plume
can be transported by groundwater flow, as the longer the survival time, the further
the plume can travel. As viruses cannot reproduce outside a host, they are virtually
not an issue until they infect a host. Therefore, unless contact with infected
groundwater occurs, outbreaks will not take place.
C. Fate and Transport of Protozoan Parasites

Protozoan parasites pose a lower risk of polluting groundwater from on-site
wastewater treatment systems, than bacteria or viruses. This is due to their relatively
larger size compared to other pathogens (Lawrence et al 2001, Thurston et al 2001).
The two most common protozoans that typically pose a health risk are
Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia Lamblia. However, most cases of infection are
self limiting in healthy adults, which reduces the risk of major outbreaks (Lawrence
et al 2001). Protozoa reproduce by releasing eggs, commonly referred to as oocysts
(Cryptosporidium parvum) or cysts (Giardia Lamblia), which will survive for a
significant time, and only hatch when in a host body. These oocysts and cysts are
particularly robust, making disinfection of effluent ineffective for their removal
(Gibson et al 1998).
The main mechanisms for removing protozoa are the same as for bacteria and
viruses; filtration, adsorption and die-off. Die-off is of major concern due to the
resilience of the oocysts and cysts. These can survive for extremely long periods of
time, making die-off the least effective means of removal. Therefore filtration and
adsorption are the effective processes for removal. Due to their relatively large size,
filtration is very effective in removing both the adult parasite and the oocysts and
cysts from wastewater. However, this is directly related to the grain size of the
filtering media and the hydraulic loading rate (Harvey et al 1995, Logan et al 2001).
Those that escape through the filtering media will generally be adsorbed by soil
particles, making contamination of groundwater less significant. As such, it is the
direct release of protozoans into surface waterways that poses the greatest risk of
infection. This is important in surface irrigated effluent, or surfacing of effluent
through failed systems, with surface runoff the main pathway of contamination.
56
2.5.5 Summary of Research Literature
The reviewed research literature has identified important issues that can significantly
affect the overall performance of OWTS. These mostly involve appropriate
assessment of the respective site and soil characteristics which determine the overall
ability of the OWTS for providing appropriate treatment. Inadequate assessment can
lead to poor performance and eventual failure of OWTS resulting in severe
environmental and public health issues.
The review of research literature enabled understanding of contaminant fate and

transport processes for the major contaminants associated with OWTS, including
nutrients and micro-organisms. The mechanisms that influence the attenuation and
removal of these contaminants are generally associated with the physical and
chemical characteristics of the soil medium, including filtration, adsorption and die
off (for micro-organisms). As such, it was clearly highlighted throughout the
reviewed literature, the importance of ensuring adequate site and soil assessment in
order to prevent poor system performance and the inherent environmental and public
health impacts.
2.6 Risk and On-Site Wastewater Treatment
As outlined by the numerous issues affecting the siting, design and management of
on-site wastewater treatment systems discussed in the previous sections, adequate
recognition of the inherent risks imposed is needed. As such, the need to assess and
manage the inherent risks associated with on-site systems is necessary to adequately
safeguard environmental and public health values. However, in order to achieve this,
a generic understanding of what represents both hazards and risk, and means of
managing them is needed.
57
2.6.1 Generic Concepts of Hazard and Risk
2.6.1.1 Hazards
A hazard exists when there is potential for harm towards either human or
environmental receptors. Specific to on-site wastewater treatment systems, hazards
are primarily related to the release of pollutants into the receiving environment, as
shown in Table 2.5. Therefore, the most important step in the overall risk assessment
process is to identify all the potential hazards resulting from the occurrence from a
particular event, such as the inadequate performance of an on-site wastewater
treatment system. There may be varying degrees of hazards associated with different
environmental and public health situations (Asante-Duah 1998). As such, all relative
hazards need to be identified, no matter how big or small they may be in comparison.
This results from the possibility of a cumulative effect which can pose quite
significant and severe consequences from the diverse range of potential hazards.
Table 2.5: Hazards and contributing factors related to OWTS
Item Key Hazard Contributing Factors

1. Soil
2. Planning (Lot size)
3. Environmental
OWTS Sensitivity
Release of contaminants due to failure
(Treatment system 4. Flooding
of On-site wastewater treatment system
and disposal area) 5. Topography
6. Loading rates
7. Operation and
maintenance practices
1. Soil Type
2. Depth of soil horizons
Inability to renovate effluent and prevent
3. Physical characteristics
Surrounding Soil contaminants from reaching groundwater
4. Chemical
and/or surface water
characteristics
5. Water table depth
Contamination of water/surrounding 1. Surface exposure
environment such that a considerable 2. Water supply
Public Health health risk is evident due to the release of (ground/surface)
contaminant (namely pathogens) which 3. Aerosols
have an impact on human health 4. Pests (mosquitoes etc)
Release of contaminants into the 1. Surface runoff
receiving environment (ground/surface 2. Groundwater discharge
Environmental waters) causing environmental 3. Flooding
degradation (such as eutrophication) 4. Water table
causing the environment to be unsuitable.
58
One of the most important questions to ask when identifying hazards is when do
hazards actually represent a risk?. In order answer this question, one must first
understand the process that leads towards a hazard, and consequently, risk. Figure
2.13 represents the potential risk associated with hazards, exposure pathways and
those at risk. Essentially, a hazard becomes a potential risk when the respective
exposure points related to the specific hazard instigate potential consequences to a
specific population either directly or through the related exposure pathways (Jones et
al 2000). In relation to identifying a hazard, the exposure pathways also need to be
identified. For a typical on-site septic tank-soil adsorption system, the exposure
pathways for contamination representing specific hazard are shown in Figure 2.12.
Once identified, the potential hazards relating to the exposure pathways can be
characterised, and the populations at risk can be identified. A thorough risk
assessment can then be carried out.
Figure 2.13: When do hazards actually represent risks?

(adapted from Asante-Duah 1998)
2.6.1.2 Risk
There is no universally accepted single definition of risk given in the literature that
can be applied in specific terms relating to specific areas (Asante-Duah 1998). For
instance, the definition of environmental risk will differ from that for public health
risk, which will also be quite different to that for financial risk. However, in simple
generic terms risk can be defined as:
59
The likelihood of a course of action (or lack of a course of action, as the

case may be) will result in an event leading towards a potential for harm
(hazard). Risk is measured in terms of the consequences arising from the
event and its likelihood (AS/NZS 4360: 1999; Jones et al 2000)
In other words, risk is a two dimensional entity involving the possibility of adverse
consequences resulting from a hazardous event, and uncertainty (Covello and
Merkhofer 1994). It must be noted that the concept of risk involves two specific
elements:
The frequency or probability (aka likelihood) that a hazardous event will
take place; and
The consequences of that event taking place.
As such, risk can be summarised as the product of these two components, or:
Risk = p x S (2.4)
where p is the probability of an event occurring, and S represents the consequences

of that event occurring. (Asante-Duah 1998).
One of the most fundamental concepts related to risk is that it can never be
eliminated (Jones et al 2000). This is one of the most misunderstood factors related
to risk. It is possible to reduce or minimise the risk through good management
practice, but risk will always be present as long as potential hazards exist.
Additionally, judgements about the likelihoods and consequences of such events
depend on a broad range of uncertainties, most of which are unacknowledged in
current approaches to risk assessment (Burgman 2001). As such, uncertainty is an
entity that cannot be forgotten in evaluating risk, but adequate means of reducing the
amount of uncertainty is essential. In evaluating uncertainty in a site-specific risk
assessment, Labienice et al (1997) concluded that the uncertainty in site properties
can substantially impact on the fate and transport of contaminants, and in turn can
significantly alter the overall risk assessment process. This in turn will affect risk
management procedures. As such, it is essential that the uncertainties involved in risk
60
be evaluated to understand how they will affect the likelihood and consequences of
related hazards.
The process of assessing and managing risk consists of a series of major processes,
as depicted in Figure 2.14, including (1) Problem formulation; (2) Hazard
Identification; (3) Risk Assessment and (4) Risk Management (AS/NZS 4360: 1999;
Asante-Duah 1998; Burgman 2001; Chin and Chittaluru 1994; Covello and
Merkhofer 1994; Gough 2001)
Establish the Context
Problem
Formulation
Communicate and consult
Identify Risks
Monitor and review

Hazard
Identification
Analyse Risks
Evaluate Risks
Risk Assessment
Treat Risks
Risk Management
Figure 2.14: Major process involved with assessing and managing risk (adapted
from AS4360:1999)
These individual processes have various procedures that define a framework for
implementing each step. These are discussed in the following sections. It must be
noted however, that the concept of risk assessment and management is an iterative
process. Achieving one item, such as successfully reducing a risk, may significantly
impact in another area, and as such, continual monitoring and review of the risk
assessment and management process needs to be undertaken.
61
Monitoring and review is of significant importance when assessing and managing

cumulative risks. Cumulative risks are those which consist of a number of hazards,
all combining to produce an adverse consequence at a particular location or point in
time. It is important to accommodate cumulative effects, as Solomon and Sibley
(2001) have noted. Contaminants seldom occur on an individual basis, with most
hazardous events incorporating a wide variety of contaminants. The complexity and
variety of contaminants usually evident in hazardous events can make assessment on
an individual basis difficult (Solomon and Sibley 2001). As such, the ability to assess
these issues on a cumulative level provides a convenient method for dealing with the
associated risks. In the case of on-site wastewater treatment systems, the release of
nutrients or pathogens into groundwater from individual systems produce risk related
to individual systems. However, the combined affect of a cluster of systems give rise
to cumulative impacts on the receiving environment. This cumulative effect will not
however be evident until the consequences of the combined effect have become
noticeable.
Additionally, the inclusion of appropriate stakeholders who have an essential role in

the development of the risk assessment and management process is one of the
essential elements that should form part of any risk management process (AS/NZS
4630. 1999). The inclusion of stakeholders in the overall risk management process is
essential, as more often than not, the key stakeholders will be those who are most at
risk. As such, the key stakeholders will need the opportunity to participate in the risk
management process. However, it will not always be easy or possible to include all
relevant stakeholders due to various issues that can impede the management process.
This includes the fact that not all organisations will want to communicate with the
public due to confidentiality issues, legal implications, and due to exposing the
identification of interested parties and stakeholders. Also communication and
consultation can be expensive and may not provide the details necessary to those
involved (Gough 2001). These issues themselves bring forth other political, legal and
financial risks that may not have even been considered in the initial risk management
process.
62
2.6.1.3 Risk Assessment
Various definitions of risk assessment can be found throughout the literature

(AS/NZS 4360: 1999; Asante-Duah 1998; Chin and Chittaluru 1994; Covello and
Merkhofer 1994; Gupta et al 2002), but these have generally been defined around the
risk assessment methodologies which various assessors have devised. In a generic
sense, risk assessment can be defined as the scientific process of evaluating the
possible likelihood and consequences of the specified risk (AS/NZS 4360: 1999;
Chin and Chittaluru 1994). This entails both risk analysis (the use of collected
information to identify possible hazards and estimate the risk imposed on the public
or the environment) and risk evaluation (the process in which judgments are made
on the level of risk, based on risk analysis of environmental, social and monetory
factors) .
In general, three distinct types of assessment methodologies are used; qualitative,

quantitative or semi-quantitative risk assessments (AS/NZS 4360: 1999). Qualitative
assessments involve ranking the identified hazards based on descriptive scales of
risk, which can be adjusted or adapted to suit the circumstances (AS/NZS 4360:
1999). As such, there is no indication of the uncertainty involved in these rankings.
Generally, the descriptive scale employed is based specifically on the assessors and
stakeholders perception of the hazard. Contrary to this, quantitative risk assessment
uses statistical analysis of collected scientific data to provide the likelihood (or
probability) of the consequence of the hazard occurring. Outcomes of the analysis
provide a means of ranking the levels of risk, with a reduced level of uncertainty
involved due to the use of scientific data. However, this is strictly dependent on the
data quality.
Semi-quantitative assessments use the same principles of quantitative risk

assessments, although no explicit statistical analysis is used to provide the likelihood
of occurrence. Scientific data may be used to rank the hazards on a numerical scale
to provide a likelihood of the consequences, although the ranking is subjective to the
assessors perception. This provides an appropriate rank which is used for
assessment purposes. Unfortunately, the methodologies used for qualitative
assessments do not adequately address the uncertainties surrounding many
63
assessments, primarily because they are unable to do this (Burgman 2001). This is
specifically due to qualitative measures adopted for assessing the risks, rather than
using scientific data to assess the probability or likelihood of the consequences.
There are several ways in which the principles of risk assessment can be incorporated
into the field of on-site wastewater treatment. These include comparative, discipline-
specific and integrated type risk assessments (Jones et al 2000). Comparative risk
assessments are typically used to assess and decide among alternative courses of
action, such as assessing the estimated risks from nutrient loadings from either
centralized or decentralized treatment (Jones et al 2000). On the other hand,
discipline-specific risk assessment processes are related to specific technical
disciplines, addressing issues based only in specific fields of expertise. These would
typically be used in assessing risks on a scientific basis, but not being concerned
about ecological or public health disciplines. Finally, integrated risk assessments are
more broadly targeted at gathering information from various sources, assessing the
involved risks and combining them into a single cohesive framework. This
framework is specifically intended to support integrated risk assessments such as
assessments used for on-site wastewater treatment systems (Jones et al 2000).
Risk Assessment Techniques

Despite the common use of the term Risk assessment, considerable differences in
the processes and relevant methodologies and frameworks used in assessing risk are
noticeable (Bridges 2003). Consequently, the type of risk assessment technique to be
employed during the risk analysis and evaluation phase is dependent on the type of
assessment being conducted, the respective stakeholders, identified receptors and
endpoints, and the amount and type of information available. For singular
assessments such as public health or environmental risk assessments, more detailed
analysis can be conducted, as more specific data relating the inherent hazards will be
targeted. However, for integrated risk assessments, the combination of various data
and influencing hazards may pose a significant challenge to undertake an extremely
detailed risk assessment.
In assessing risk of public health hazards, it is common to either apply a probability

distribution technique based on applied data, or to conduct a dose-response
64
relationship to determine at what dose of a particular substance or organism (eg

pathogen) a specific response will be developed in identified receptors (eg humans).
The dose-response relationship is currently reliant on a group of sigmoidal
mathematical equations which are used to empirically describe the required dose-
response relations (Buchanan et al 2000). The level of risk is then assessed on this
dose-response relationship. However, the use of the required dose-response model is
dependent on the availability of information on the populations exposure to the
biological agents as well as an understanding of the mechanisms of pathogenicity
(host, food and type of pathogen) associated with individual pathogens (Buchanan et
al 2000, Ashbolt 2004).
Dose-response relationships have been developed for a majority of chemicals and

microorganisms, and the risk assessment phase can be assessed based on these
developed models. However, until recently, most utilised dose-response models have
used data based on relationships developed through animal trials, which can instigate
some uncertainty in their predictive capability (Ashbolt 2004). Similar techniques are
utilised for ecological and environmental risk assessment, with the exception that the
relevant receptors are typically non-human (risk assessment focused on
consequences related to animals and environmental sensitive areas). However,
although risk assessments this detailed are extremely beneficial and provide more
accurate levels of risk, the availability of the necessary data to obtain the required
outcomes is often an issue (Bridges et al 2003).
The use of integrated risk assessment procedures have become increasingly popular,
with the need to assess both public health and environmental risks at the same time
(Federa 1998, Jones et al 2000, Bridges 2003). However, due to the fact that separate
public health and environmental risk assessment processes have previously been
used to assess these risks, variations in data type, amount and quality will vary
significantly (Bridges 2003). Therefore, in most cases when undertaking an
integrated approach, the need to identify and obtain data relating to all aspects (both
public health and environmental risks) of the risk assessment process will be needed.
The consequent use of this data will also entail similar approaches in modelling the
inherent risks, which may be difficult due to the current processes and level of detail
required to provide accurate quantitative assessments (Buchanan et al 2000, Bridges
65
2003, Ashbolt 2004, Moona et al 2004). Therefore, the use of an Engineering risk
assessment approach can be beneficial.
The engineering risk technique is formulated around the probability of failure

models. That is, the level of risk associated with specific hazards is assessed through
the probability of the hazard failing a specified target. The risk established through
this process is equivalent to:

L

Risk = probabilty of failure = Pf = P( L > R) = f LR ( L, R)dR dL (2.5)
0 0
where L = pollutant loading or concentration and R = resistance or prescribed water
quality standard or threshold (Ganoulis 1996). In the case of integrated public health
and environmental risk assessments, this basically assesses the probability of the
level of a particular pollutant (for example nitrate or faecal coliforms) failing
specified threshold levels, such as adopted water quality guidelines (ANZECC 2000
and NHMRC 1996). Utilising this technique, integrated risk assessment processes
allows an acceptable means of assessing the different risk paradigms.
2.6.1.4 Risk Management and Mitigation
There are numerous risk management strategies presented in the literature (Chittaluru
1994, Fedra 1998, AS/NZS 4360: 1999, CENR 1999, Chin and Hope and Peterson
2000, Brown and Root Services 2001, Lawrence et al 2001). These strategies are
generally similar in what they want to achieve, but the processes involved in
achieving it can be quite different. The reason for this is the dual definition of risk
management. The definition of risk management describes the fundamental concept
of controlling risk to provide minimal impacts arising from consequences. However,
when describing the process of managing risk, the concepts of risk assessment and
mitigation are also generally included. The basic concept of risk management is to
generate viable options based on the assessment of the characterised risks. These
options are then evaluated, with the inclusion of stakeholder perception, as this
removes the decision makers perception of what is best to do (HB 203: 2000).
Inevitably, what is, and what is not acceptable will ultimately be a political and not a
scientific issue (Fedra 1998). Whatever the case, the scientific background developed
66
for the overall risk assessment will greatly influence the ultimate decision as to what
best management practice to adopt to mitigate the characterised risks to an
acceptable level.
2.6.2 On-site Wastewater Treatment Management
The management of on-site wastewater treatment systems generally falls within the
responsibility of the regulatory authorities. They are generally responsible for
approving the installation of on-site systems, with approvals and restrictions based
partly on their own regulations and the prescriptive criteria outlined in Australian
Standards and codes. As a national standard, AS/NZS 1547:2000 should provide
adequate OWTS assessment and management procedures to achieve the requisite
sustainable outcomes nation-wide. However most regulatory authorities have in
place regulations and guidelines for the use of on-site systems, which can alter
substantially from one jurisdiction to another with regards to site assessment, system
design, and more recently, management requirements. Unfortunately, this has been a
major drawback to the nation-wide acceptance of AS/NZS1547:2000 and the
adoption of standardised management strategies. As such, this has led to the
realisation that more rigorous evaluations in regard to site assessments and the
underlying ground conditions are needed. The prescriptive criteria used for the
assessment of site and soil characteristics in on-site system design are not sufficiently
robust enough to be used for all sites and all situations, which in turn have commonly
led to poor system performance.
2.6.3 Risk-based Approach to On-site Systems
The evolving risk-based approach to on-site system siting, design and management
can be considered as the next improvement to the current standards and codes for on-
site wastewater treatment systems. It must be noted that risk has in general been
implicitly included in current regulations for on-site wastewater treatment systems.
These regulations include separation distances between soil adsorption fields and
watertable levels, as well as setback limits between neighbouring properties and
potable water supplies (Jones et al 2000). However, the implementation of these risk-
67
based assessments have been modified to comply with the performance based codes,
therefore only aiding in the siting and design requirements rather than assessing the
suitability for the system. In order to successfully implement risk assessment into
regulatory codes, it is essential that it becomes the driving force behind the code,
rather than being included as part of an existing code.
One of the most important issues specific to the development of a risked-based

approach for on-site wastewater treatment system is the inclusion of not only vast
amounts of data necessary to perform specific risk assessments, but also the means of
establishing a single coherent framework that includes both public health and
environmental risks assessments, as well as means of assessing the risks associated
with the siting, design and management aspects as well. This is probably the major
limiting factor as to why a risk-based approach has not yet been developed in the
regulatory procedures. Figure 2.15 provides a framework for risk
assessment/management of wastewater soil absorption systems developed by Siegrist
et al (2000). The most important challenge relating to the management of the
inherent risks associated with on-site wastewater systems is the assessment of the
magnitude of the risks in a given situation and the decision towards the most
appropriate method of managing those risks (Siegrist et al 2000).
2.6.4 Overview of Current Risk Assessment/Management Models
As a result of the numerous reports of poorly performing OWTS and subsequent

contamination of water resources, regulatory authorities world-wide are beginning to
utilise risk-base models for assessing and managing the use OWTS. Under the
Septic3Safe program implemented in the State of New South Wales (NSW),
Australia, following the Wallis Lake Hepatitis A outbreak, a risk-based model, the
On-site Sewage Risk Assessment System (OSRAS) was developed (Brown and Root
Services 2001, Kenway 2001). The OSRAS model was developed to utilise existing
databases to determine the risk posed by on-site treatment systems on the
surrounding environment and the cumulative impacts of systems on downstream
environments.
68
Figure 2.15: Conceptual framework for risk assessment/management of

wastewater soil absorption systems. (Siegrist et al 2000)
Another similar model, the Development Assessment Module (DAM), has been
developed by the Sydney Catchment Authority, NSW State, Australia (McGuinness
and Martens 2003). DAM was developed in order to reduce the impacts on Sydney
Citys water supply from new housing developments in areas relying on on-site
systems for sewage treatment. DAM also utilises existing databases to predict the
extent and direction of an effluent plume originating from a treatment system in
order to assess its potential impact on water quality (McGuinness and Martens 2003).
This predicted plume can then be utilised in assessments to determine the level of
risk associated with installing an on-site system in a particular area.
Similar models have also been developed internationally, such as TrenchTM 3.0
(Cromer 1999) which aids in the assessment and suitability of sites for septic
absorption trenches; WARMF (Kirkland 2001), Watershed Analysis Risk
Management Framework, which has been modified to incorporate effluent
infiltration into the soil layer below the land surface to account for cumulative effects
69
of systems as non-point source pollutant loads (Chen et al 2001); and MANAGE

(Joubert et al 1996) or Method for Assessment, Nutrient-loading, and Geographic
Evaluation of Watersheds, a model used to identify groundwater pollution sources
and future risks and to evaluate the impacts of alternative on-site wastewater
treatment systems. However, though these models are able to determine the level of
risk if an on-site system is installed at a particular location, the accuracy of the risk
model is singularly dependent on the amount and type of data available to the user.
Additionally, the complexity of some of these models reduces them to black box
approaches, whereby the user inputs data and receives an answer without any
guidance as to how this was derived.
Another important limitation of these models is that they are unable to assess the
level of risk currently present in an area due to existing on-site treatment systems.
The cumulative impact approach, which assesses the impact on the environment and
public health from incremental changes in the risk resulting from additional on-site
systems, is assessed from a background or zero risk level. This may be misleading if
the assessed area is already at high risk due to the presence of on-site treatment
systems for many years.
For this reason, assessment and management frameworks have also been developed.
Hoover (1998) developed a Framework for Site Evaluation, Design and Engineering
of On-site Technologies Within a Management Context in order to addresses both
risk management and long term operation and maintenance (Hover 1998). Similarly,
NDWRCD (2002) utilised the framework developed by Hoover (1998) in order to
develop a risk-based approach to OWTS assessment and management for the Tisbury
region, Massachusetts, USA. Loetsher and Keller (2002) developed the SANEX
system, a decision support tool created to allow regulatory authorities to assess the
suitability of alternative OWTS systems for different sites. This framework utilises
various site and soil characteristics, as well as alternative system technology to
develop ranked indices to determine the most suitable system to use in a particular
area. The main difference between utilising a developed risk model versus the
development of a suitable framework for a particular region utilising OWTS is the
incorporation of relevant stakeholders. This allows a more useful framework to be
70
devised based on the main issues associated for the area of concern, rather than
trying to obtain and utilise the necessary required by developed risk models.
It was readily observed throughout the literature that a number of deficiencies are
evident in the currently adopted standards codes and guidelines employed for the
assessment and management of OWTS. As a result of these deficiencies, the
development of risk-based approaches for the assessment and management of OWTS
are becoming increasingly popular as regulatory authorities identify the need to
safeguard against environmental and public health issues. Several risk-based models
developed for OWTS were reviewed through the literature. However, although these
models provided a means of assessing the inherent risks, one of the major issues
identified as lacking in both currently adopted standards and the risk-based models is
the incorporation of scientifically defensible information for assessing the respective
risks. Additionally, most of these developed models are integrated with sophisticated
GIS packages, which can ultimately reduced them to black box approaches with
little flexibility allowed in the overall risk assessment process. Therefore, the
development of a flexible risk-based framework that implements the necessary
scientific information to assess site suitability and develop suitable management
strategies to mitigate inherent risk needs to be developed.
2.7 Conclusions from Literature Review
On-site wastewater treatment systems are capable of providing adequate treatment

and dispersal of domestic effluent provided they are situated in areas that retain
appropriate site and soil characteristics and are managed and maintained on a regular
basis. However, failure of OWTS is a common scenario, particularly for septic tank-
soil absorption systems. This is related to several issues including unsatisfactory site
and soil characteristics, general maintenance of systems, and the inappropriate
assessment and management of on-site systems. Poor OWTS performance can lead
to serious environmental and public health issues. Consequently, more appropriate
assessment and management techniques need to be developed to safeguard against
71
the inherent hazards associated with the typical failure of OWTS. The evolving risk-
based approach to on-site system siting, design and management can be considered
as the next improvement to the current standards and codes employed in on-site
wastewater treatment systems.
From the reviewed literature, several important issues were highlighted which
needed to be investigated in order to develop a robust, scientifically based risk
approach for the management of on-site wastewater treatment systems. These issues
are:
More thorough assessment of soil characteristics, based on scientific

investigation and analysis, is required to ensure suitable effluent renovation is
achieved through OWTS.
Identification and assessment of the different factors that influence contaminant
fate and transport of OWTS contaminants.
Investigation of the overall extent of contamination of groundwater and surface
water resources as a result of high densities of on-site systems.
Assessment of faecal contamination of groundwater and surface water resources
due to OWTS. This includes applying applicable means of identifying the
respective sources of faecal contamination and linking human sources back to
OWTS.
Assessment of OWTS siting and design issues and the inherent environmental
and public health risks.
Development of a universal and scientifically robust integrated risk assessment
framework for allowing more appropriate siting and assessment of OWTS to
ensure adequate treatment performance is achieved.
Development of a risk management process for mitigating the identified OWTS
siting and design, environmental and public health risks.
The research conducted through this thesis explores these issues through a series of
scientific papers, with the respective outcomes used for the development of an
integrated risk framework for on-site wastewater treatment systems.
72
CHAPTER 3
FRAMEWORK FOR SOIL SUITABILITY EVALUATION FOR

SEWAGE EFFLUENT RENOVATION
STEVEN CARROLL*, ASHANTHA GOONETILLEKE AND LES DAWES
School of Civil Engineering,

Published: Environmental Geology (2004) 44(2): 195-208
Statement of Contributions of Joint Authorship
Carroll, S: (Candidate)
Writing and compilation of manuscript, established methodology, data analysis,
preparation of tables and figures
Goonetilleke, A: (Principal Supervisor)

Supervised and assisted with manuscript compilation, editing and co-author of
manuscript
Dawes, L: (Research Colleague)

Editing and co-author of manuscript
This Chapter is an exact copy of the journal paper referred to above.
73
Chapter 3.0 Framework for Soil suitability evaluation for sewage effluent renovation
Environmental Geology 46(2): 195-208
This paper is not available online.

Please consult the hardcopy thesis
available from the QUT Library
74
CHAPTER 4.0
ASSESSMENT VIA DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS OF SOIL

SUITABILITY FOR EFFLUENT RENOVATION USING
UNDISTURBED SOIL COLUMNS
STEVEN CARROLL1, ASHANTHA GOONETILLEKE1, WAEL AL-SHIEKH KHALIL1 AND

RAY FROST2,
1
School of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology
2
School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology,
Geoderma (2005) In press Corrected Proof DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.03.022
Steven Carroll: (Candidate)

Ashantha Goonetilleke: (Principal Supervisor)

manuscript
Wael Khalil: (Research Colleague)

Assisted in data analysis, editing and co-author of manuscript
Ray Frost: (Associate Supervisor)

106
Chapter 4.0 Assessment via discriminant analysis of soil suitability for effluent renovation using
undisturbed soil columns
Geoderma Accepted for publication and article in press DOI

107
CHAPTER 5.0
USE OF CHEMOMETRICS METHODS AND MULTICRITERIA

DECISION-MAKING FOR SITE SELECTION FOR SUSTAINABLE
ON-SITE SEWAGE EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
WAEL AL-SHIEKH KHALIL*1, ASHANTHA GOONETILLEKE1, SERGE KOKOT2 AND

STEVEN CARROLL1
1
2
Inorganic Material Research Program, School of Physical and Chemical Sciences,
Published: Analytica Chimica Acta (2004) 506: 4156
Wael Khalil: (Research Colleague)

preparation of tables and figures.

manuscript.
Serge Kokot: (Research Advisor)

Supervised and assisted with manuscript compilation, interpretation of results,
editing and co-author of manuscript.

Data analysis, established methodology, editing and co-author of manuscript.
139
Chapter 5.0 Use of chemometrics methods and multicriteria decision-making for site selection
for sustainable on-site sewage effluent disposal
Analytica Chimica Acta 506 (2004) 4156

140
CHAPTER 6.0
ASSESSMENT OF HIGH DENSITY OF ONSITE WASTEWATER

TREATMENT SYSTEMS ON A SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
COASTAL AQUIFER USING PCA
STEVEN CARROLL AND ASHANTHA GOONETILLEKE

Article in Press: Environmetrics (2005) 16: 257-274


manuscript.
172
Chapter 6.0 Assessment of High Density of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems on a Shallow
Groundwater Coastal Aquifer using PCA
Environmetrics (Article in Press - DOI: 10.1002/env.698)

173
CHAPTER 7.0
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS AFFECTING

FECAL COLIFORMS AND E. COLI IN GROUND AND SURFACE
WATERS IN A COASTAL ENVIRONMENT
STEVEN CARROLL1, MEGAN HARGREAVES2, ASHANTHA GOONETILLEKE1 AND EVAN

THOMAS3
1
2
School of Life Sciences, Queensland University of Technology
3
Gold Coast City Council, Gold Coast Australia
Peer review completed and resubmitted to Environmental Microbiology

Megan Hargreaves: (Associate Supervisor)

Assisted with manuscript compilation, editing and co-author of manuscript

manuscript
Evan Thomas: (Associate Supervisor)

201
Chapter 7.0 Environmental and anthropogenic factors affecting fecal coliforms and E. coli in
ground and surface waters in a coastal environment
Peer review completed and resubmitted to Environmental Microbiology

202
CHAPTER 8.0
SOURCING FECAL POLLUTION FROM ONSITE WASTEWATER

TREATMENT SYSTEMS IN SURFACE WATERS USING ANTIBIOTIC
RESISTANCE ANALYSIS
STEVEN CARROLL1*, MEGAN HARGREAVES2 AND ASHANTHA GOONETILLEKE1

1
2
Journal of Applied Microbiology, (2005) 99: 471-482


Assisted with manuscript compilation, editing and co-author of manuscript.

manuscript.
227
Chapter 8.0 Sourcing fecal pollution from onsite wastewater treatment systems in surface
waters using antibiotic resistance analysis
Journal of Applied Microbiology 99: 471-482

228
CHAPTER 9.0
INTEGRATED RISK FRAMEWORK FOR ONSITE WASTEWATER

TREATMENT SYSTEMS
STEVEN CARROLL1*, ASHANTHA GOONETILLEKE1, EVAN THOMAS2, MEGAN HARGREAVES4,

RAY FROST3 AND LES DAWES1
1
2
Gold Coast City Council, Gold Coast, Australia
3
School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology
4
Article submitted to: Environmental Management


Supervised and assisted with manuscript compilation, editing and co-author
Evan Thomas: (Associate Supervisor)

Editing and Co-author of Manuscript

Ray Frost: (Associate Supervisor)

Les Dawes: (Research Colleague)

255
Chapter 9.0 Integrated Risk Framework for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
Article submitted to Environmental Management

256
CHAPTER 10.0
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Rapid development around the urban fringes and hinterland regions in Southeast
Queensland has dramatically increased the need for on-site wastewater treatment
systems (OWTS) for the treatment and dispersal of domestic wastewater. Due to the
absence of centralised treatment facilities, OWTS are the most economical and
feasible alternative for treatment of wastewater. However, on-site system failure is a
common issue both in Australia and internationally (Hagedorn et al 1991, Geary
1992, Hoxley and Dudding et al 1994, Harris 1995, Goonetilleke et al 2000,
Goonetilleke et al 2002). Typically, poor treatment performance of OWTS is a result
of several factors including inappropriate soil and site characteristics, poor operation
and maintenance practices and a general lack of knowledge by householders
regarding appropriate use and general maintenance of OWTS (Whitehead and Geary
2000, Alle et al 2001). The current standards and guidelines used for the assessment
and management of OWTS, although performance based, have shown to be
inadequate for preventing system failure, leading to environmental and public health
impacts (Whitehead and Geary 2000, Seigrist 2001, Dawes and Goonetilleke 2004).
The assessment and management of OWTS generally falls within the responsibility
of individual local authorities. Consequently, wide variations in adopted codes and
guidelines between regulatory authorities are common. As such, the need to develop
universal and scientifically robust OWTS management guidelines is necessary
(Beavers 1999). Risk-based approaches to OWTS assessment and management are
considered one of the most appropriate and functional means of achieving this
objective. However, risk-based concepts for OWTS have not been widely
implemented, mostly due to a lack of knowledge and guidance on the practical
implementation of risk-based processes (EPRI 2001).
The research conducted contributed to overcoming the constraints associated with

OWTS siting, design and management, including more thorough soil suitability
assessment techniques, assessment of the inherent factors associated with the fate
287
Chapter 10.0 General Discussion
and transport of contaminants from OWTS, and the integration of this research into
the development of the risk-based framework. The research outcomes achieved were
applied to the development of an integrated risk-based approach for the management
of OWTS. The primary objectives for the research project were achieved by
addressing the specific research aims, which included investigations into soil
suitability for effluent renovation, understanding contamination and transport
processes influencing environmental and public health risks and the development of
an integrated risk framework for OWTS. Several complementary studies were
undertaken focusing towards achieving these specific aims, with the research
conducted and relevant outcomes discussed in the enclosed scientific papers in
Chapters 3 to 9.
10.1 Soil suitability for effluent renovation
The suitability of soil plays a prominent role in providing adequate treatment

performance and dispersal of effluent from an OWTS. For common septic tank-soil
absorption systems, the soil surrounding the dispersal area is required to provide
adequate attenuation and removal of effluent pollutants, such as nutrients and
pathogens, as well as providing an effective means to disperse the discharged
effluent (Dawes and Goonetilleke 2004). The soil also provides a treatment medium
for aerobic wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) employing surface irrigation.
Although most of the effluent discharged to the surface application area will be
utilised by vegetation or transmitted to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration, the
pollutants themselves will remain behind in the soil. Therefore, the ability of the soil
to attenuate and remove these pollutants needs to be assessed. However, the current
methods of assessing soil suitability for use in OWTS is typically focused on the
dispersal of effluent, with little attention given to whether the soil is capable of
providing adequate treatment. In recent times however, the need to pay more
attention towards soil treatment of effluent has been recognised due to the high
failure rates of OWTS reported both nationally and internationally (Wells 1989,
Geary 1992, Whitehead and Geary 2000, Carroll et al 2004, Dawes and Goonetilleke
2004).
288
The main deficiency in the current means of assessing soil suitability for OWTS is
the lack of scientific methodology for identifying which soils are suitable for
providing adequate renovation of discharged effluent. The developed soil suitability
framework (Carroll et al 2004; Chapter 3) addresses some of these deficiencies by
assessing the renovation suitability of a number different soil types common
throughout Southeast Queensland. This was based on three major mechanisms, soil
renovation ability, soil permeability and soil drainage. The procedure used for
determining this is shown in Figure 10.1. Soil renovation ability was evaluated by
analysing a number of soil physico-chemical characteristics employing multivariate
statistical methods such as PCA and multicriteria decision making methods such as
PROMETHEE and GAIA. The analysed soils were ranked based on their effluent
renovation ability. The main focus of the soil research undertaken was to determine
which of the major physico-chemical characteristics influenced soil renovation
ability, and thereby prioritise the different soil types based on their overall suitability.
Detailed descriptions of the analytical processes and multivariate assessment

techniques used for assessing the suitability of soils are described in Carroll et al
(2004a,b; Papers 1 and 2) and Khalil et al (2004; Paper 3). The multivariate analysis
undertaken on the soil variables showed that there are several primary variables that
influence the ability of soil to renovate effluent. These include the amount and type
of clay present in the soil, Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), organic matter content
(%OM) as well as soil permeability and drainage characteristics. CEC defines the
ability of a soil for attenuating and removing effluent pollutants, and can be
significantly influenced by the amount and type of clay present as well as the %OM.
Therefore, more suitable soils would retain higher CEC values. However, both the
permeability and drainage can also be influenced by the amount and type of clay
present in the soil. Therefore lower amounts of clay are more appropriate. For a soil
to provide suitable treatment and dispersal of effluent, it must fulfil both the
treatment and dispersal processes.
289
Soil Renovation Soil Permeability Soil Drainage

Ability Assessment Assessment Assessment
Soil Renovation Suitability Index
Figure 10.1: Soil renovation suitability framework (adapted from Carroll et al 2004)
From the outcomes of this study, prioritisation of the respective soils was conducted.
Table 10.1 provides the obtained suitability rankings for the investigated soil types.
The major soil groups that were identified as most suitable for effluent renovation
include the Chromosol, Kurosol, Ferrosol and Dermosol soil groups. These results
are significant as soils previously thought to be incapable of providing appropriate
treatment of sewage effluent based purely on soil physical characteristics were
subsequently found to be suitable. The most important outcome from the soil
investigations was in relation to Kurosol soils. Kurosols which were previously
defined as inappropriate for effluent application based purely on drainage
characteristics (Noble 1996), was found to be one of the most suitable soils within
the Gold Coast region for providing effluent renovation. However, this particular
finding signifies the necessity for identifying suitable soils based on the combination
of renovation ability, permeability and drainage characteristics.
Table 10.1: Major soil groups ranked in order of their suitability for effluent
renovation
Soil Classification Suitability
Chromosols, Kurosols 1 Very Good
Ferrosols, Dermosols 2
Kandosols, Rudosols 3
Podosols, Tenosols 4
Organosols 5
Vertosols, Sodosols 6
Hydrosols 7 Very Poor
290
Similar results to those derived by Carroll et al (2004; Paper 1) were also developed
by Khalil et al. (2004; Paper 3) in a study undertaken to assess land capability for
on-site sewage effluent renovation in the Logan City Council region. Soils with a
higher ability for attenuating and removing pollutants were determined based on
CEC and %OM in soil.
To further clarify the soil suitability rankings obtained from the previous study
(Chapter 3), the effluent renovation ability of several of the most common soil types
found in Southeast Queensland, including the Gold Coast, was investigated using
undisturbed soil columns (Carroll et al 2004; Paper 2). The use of soil columns for
assessing different soil types for treating effluent have been investigated in numerous
past research studies (Parker and Carbon 1981, Powelson and Gerba 1994, Jin 2000,
Van Cuyk et al 2001). However, most of these studies utilised packed soil columns
(homogeneous soil repacked into columns). Although indicating the capacity of the
soil medium to remove contaminants, the results can be misleading as the utilised
medium is not equivalent to in-situ conditions. Additionally, other studies used soil
columns for investigating specific processes. For example, soil columns have been
used for assessing pollutant attenuation and removal characteristics with little regard
to the effluent dispersal process of the soil (Lam et al 1993, Jin et al 2000).
Additionally, several studies have used soil columns for assessing long term effluent
acceptance rates through the development of a biological clogging layer (Laak, 1970,
Daniel and Bouma 1974, Kristiansen 1981, Siegrist 1987). However, investigation
into the treatment and dispersal mechanisms of the soil medium itself was not
investigated.
The purpose of this column study (Chapter 4) was initially to assess the suitability of
different soil types for effluent renovation, including contaminant attenuation and
removal, as well as the soil dispersal processes. Additionally, the respective changes
occurring to the soil medium as a result of effluent application were also
investigated. This included contaminant wash-off processes, soil degradation and
permeability and drainage processes. The long-term behaviour of the soil cores under
effluent application was also investigated, with particular reference to the renovation
and dispersal characteristics simultaneously with changes in the soils textural and
physico-chemical makeup. This multifaceted approach has not been conducted in
291
other soil column studies published to-date, particularly in relation to effluent

renovation processes. The results obtained from this column study after eight months
of effluent application agreed with the previous prioritised soil rankings as discussed
by Carroll et al (2004; Paper 1). Soils that retained an initially high CEC, %OM,
medium clay content, moderate permeability and good drainage were found to be
more suitable for the long-term renovation of effluent. However, several soil
columns that had very high clay content did not adequately transmit the applied
effluent to allow long term use. Comparatively, it was observed that soils with a high
permeability, and low CEC, %OM and %C did not provide sufficient attenuation and
removal of effluent pollutants. Hence, these soil types are not suitable for the
treatment and dispersal of effluent from OWTS.
Although the focus of the research project was the Gold Coast region, the outcomes
of these studies are generic and are of significance to the Southeast Queensland
region in general. The soil types investigated are common to the region. Therefore,
the results and established soil suitability framework will be beneficial to other
regions employing OWTS. Adoption of the developed framework in addition to site
assessment and management techniques will provide more appropriate identification
of problem soils and minimise the high number of poorly performing OWTS due to
inappropriate soil conditions. This will ultimately minimise the inherent
environmental and public health risks as a result of the poor system performance.
10.2 Contamination and transport processes influencing

environmental and public health risks
Contamination of water resources as a result of poor treatment performance of

OWTS can have serious environmental and public health impacts. Increased nutrient
loads into surface waters can cause nutrient enrichment, resulting in eutrophication
and algae blooms. Apart from the environmental degradation of water resources and
the resulting aesthetic water quality issues, this can also cause public health hazards.
High levels of nitrate in drinking water sources are regarded as a public health issue,
causing health related issues such as methaemaglobinamenia (Blue Baby Syndrome),
development of carcinogenic nitrosamines (cancerous cells developed through
292
bacterial production N-nitroso compounds), increased infant mortality, and changes

to the immune system (Bouwer and Idelovitch 1987, Fewtrell 2004). Additionally,
faecal contamination as a result of inadequately treated effluent transported to water
resources is also of critical concern to public health. Pathogenic organisms are
present in inadequately treated wastewater. The inherent possibility of disease
resulting from contact with pathogenic organisms in contaminated water is high.
These issues are further exacerbated by high densities of OWTS situated in areas
without adequate soil and site characteristics available to provide suitable effluent
treatment.
The movement of pollutants from OWTS into the groundwater, and eventually
surface water are reliant on a number of physical and chemical processes which may
either hinder or advance contaminant transport. The most critical factor that
influences these mechanisms is the soil. However, some soils, particularly sandy
soils or soil influenced by seasonal or permanent saturation, do not provide adequate
renovation ability. Numerous studies have shown that the siting of OWTS on these
soils types increase the risk of contamination of both groundwater and surface water,
particularly in areas with high OWTS densities (Perkins 1984, Sinton 1986, Geary
and Whitehead 2001, Carroll and Goonetilleke 2004). Two studies conducted
through this research; Carroll and Goonetilleke (2004; Paper 4) and Carroll et al
(2004; Appendix A), also indicated substantial contamination of water resources as a
result of high densities of OWTS. In the course of the research undertaken, the
impact of high densities of OWTS on a shallow groundwater aquifer was assessed
using multivariate analysis. Groundwater samples collected over a four month period
were assessed for nutrient and microbiological contamination. These studies
indicated that significant nitrate and faecal contamination of shallow groundwater
aquifers were evident in urban developments utilising OWTS for treatment and
dispersal of effluent. The high correlation found between contaminants typical of
effluent indicates that the major source of the contamination results from OWTS.
Additionally, the influence of high densities of OWTS also impacted on the adjacent
estuarine surface waters, with both faecal contamination and elevated nitrate and
phosphate concentrations above stipulated water quality guidelines (ANZECC 2000).
293
An additional issue that needs to be adequately recognised in assessing and

managing OWTS for environmental and public health protection is the
implementation of suitable setback distances between OWTS and water resources.
Current setback distances employed for addressing environmental and public health
safeguards can be inadequate where soils and shallow groundwater aquifers are
concerned, as highlighted in several past studies (Cromer et al 2001, Pang et al
2003). Although not investigated as part of this research, results of past studies
undertaken have indicated that the transport of chemical compounds, particularly
nitrates, can be far greater than the adopted setback criteria. However, groundwater
and surface water investigations conducted through this research (data not published)
found that the use of OWTS in areas that had suitable soil for effluent renovation did
not cause detrimental impacts on water resources.
Similarly microbiological contamination of water resources is a critical concern. This

is of particular importance with regards to the appropriate assessment and
management of OWTS, as poorly performing systems can result in adverse public
health impacts. Numerous cases of viral and bacteriological infections from the
contamination water sources as a result of failing OWTS have been reported in the
literature (Fliesher et al 1998, Cliver 2000, Borchardt et al 2003). Although major
disease outbreaks are generally reported through the literature for their public health
significance, the overall extent of public health issues associated with failing OWTS
may be far more substantial. The significance of infection is commonly considered
minor compared to these larger outbreaks. A recent study undertaken by Fleisher et
al (1998) investigating the risk of illness associated with bathing in waters
contaminated by domestic sewage suggests that these relatively minor incidences can
be a significant public health issue. Microbiological contamination of bathing water
was found to increase the risk of contracting gastroenteritis, acute febrile respiratory
illness, ear and eye infections.
The most common method for assessing water quality in relation to public health and
the potential for the presence of pathogenic organisms is through the use of faecal
indicators, commonly faecal coliforms and Escherichia coli (E. coli). Although
pathogenic organism themselves may be able to provide more appropriate
information regarding the risk to public health, the time and costs associated with the
294
enumeration of these organisms, particularly the pathogenic organisms of concern,

are far in excess compared to enumeration of faecal coliforms. Consequently, most
authorities utilise faecal indicators to assess the microbiological water quality in
relation to faecal contamination and resulting pathogenic organisms. This leads to
several significant issues which need to be adequately considered when assessing the
risk to public health from OWTS. Faecal bacteria can be emitted from various
sources, including agricultural sources, wild and domesticated animals, urban
development and effluent treatment facilities such as OWTS (Kelsey et al 2004).
Although confirming that faecal contamination is apparent, indicators may not
accurately portray the transportation and survival of other pathogenic organisms they
are intended to show. This is compounded by the fact that the faecal indicators may
not be from one particular source, but rather from a variety of sources in the region.
However, the presence of faecal bacteria in water resources does indicate that faecal
contamination has occurred (Meays et al 2004).
It is generally considered that fluctuations in faecal bacteria numbers in water

resources are influenced by rainfall, with higher levels occurring after high rainfall
periods (Kelsey et al 2004, Ackerman 2003, Muirhead 2004). This phenomenon was
also observed through the assessment of faecal contamination through two studies
undertaken in the course of this research project (Carroll and Goonetilleke 2005;
Paper 4 and Carroll et al 2004; Paper 5). Increases in faecal contamination of water
resources, particular surface water, occur after large rainfall events due to the
resulting runoff collecting faecal bacteria from numerous sources within a catchment.
However, in studies undertaken by Lipp et al (2001) and Alm et al (2003), high
numbers of faecal bacteria were also observed irrespective of rainfall characteristics.
Therefore, research was conducted to investigate whether other environmental and
anthropogenic factors also influence the contamination and transport processes of
faecal bacteria (Carroll et al 2004; Paper 5).
Several past research investigating the various factors influencing the transportation
of faecal bacteria have found that increased urbanisation, combined with rainfall
significantly increase the extent of faecal contamination (Young and Thackston
1999, Kelsey et al 2004). However, limited studies have specifically investigated the
different factors than can influence the transportation of faecal bacteria associated
295
with OWTS treatment and dispersal. This was the main focus of the conducted study.
Several factors, including rainfall, OWTS density, urbanisation, and soil type, were
found to enhance the transportation of faecal bacteria through the environment.
However, the factors influencing transportation were found to differ between surface
and groundwater. Surface water contamination was significantly influenced by
rainfall in association with increased urbanisation, mostly due to the higher
percentage of impervious areas associated with urban environments. This results in
higher runoff causing substantial increases in faecal bacteria loadings to surface
water. Only minor correlations with the remaining factors, particularly OWTS
density and slope, were observed. Comparatively, the factors that greatly affected
faecal contamination of groundwater included higher densities of OWTS, soil type
and resulting depth to ground water, with only a minor influence exerted by rainfall.
Additionally, through this research it was found that the combined effect of multiple
factors significantly affected faecal bacteria loadings more than any individual factor
alone. Therefore, the assessment of faecal contamination for water resources should
be conducted as a multivariate study to investigate the significance of all related
factors. Although certain individual factors may indicate a stronger influence, the
cumulative effect caused by several minor factors could be more significant in
influencing the transport of faecal bacteria to surface waters.
Additionally, an important feature of this research and generally not undertaken in

most water quality assessments until recently, was the identification of the respective
sources of faecal bacteria using Bacterial Source Tracking (BST) methods. Faecal
coliform bacteria inhabit the intestinal tract of all warm-blooded animals and
consequently, faecal coliform counts from a contaminated waterway will not provide
any information as to the actual source of contamination. This information is
important as faecal pollution resulting from human sources will establish a high
public health risk due to the possible presence of pathogenic organisms.
Additionally, if the faecal source is known, suitable management actions can be
implemented to prevent further contamination and to mitigate the health risks
(Harwood et al 2000).
296
In order to perform a more appropriate public health risk assessment, within the BST
method of analysis, Antibiotic Resistance Patterns (ARP) of enumerated E. coli
isolates was undertaken (Carroll et al 2004; Paper 6). The major advantages of
utilising ARP techniques over molecular methods such as random amplified
polymorphic DNA or rep-PCR DNA extraction methods (Pareveen et al 1999,
Dombeck et al 2000), is that ARP profiles can be used on more inclusive taxonomic
groups of faecal coliforms and faecal streptococci, with hundreds of faecal isolates
able to be analysed within a few days of sample collection, at a fraction of the cost of
molecular methods (Whitlock et al 2002). ARP essentially utilises the resistance of
selected faecal bacteria isolates. For this study, the resistance of Escherichia coli (E.
coli) to several antibiotics at varying concentrations were investigated in order to
obtain their resistance profiles. The underlying assumption of the ARP technique is
that due to the increased use of antibiotics by humans and domesticated animals,
isolated E. coli bacteria from these host sources will have higher resistance than that
of wild animals (Wiggins 1996). The ARP technique required a library of known E.
coli isolates, from human and non-human sources, to be tested for their respective
ARP. These were then analysed statistically using multivariate discriminant
techniques to separate the respective patterns into source groups. Once the known
source library was developed, E. coli from the investigated water samples were
tested for their ARP and compared to the known source library and categorised
according to the respective grouping of known source isolates with similar ARPs.
Previous studies have demonstrated the successful application of ARP for

discriminating sources of faecal contamination in water sources (Wiggins 1996,
Wiggins et al 1999, Booth 2003). However, although indicating that faecal bacteria
from human sources can be significant, no linkage towards the actual origin of this
contamination has been suggested. This was an additional aim of the source tracking
study undertaken in this research project. With the only available source of human
faecal bacteria being from OWTS within the investigated catchments, E. coli isolates
categorised as human could only have originated from these systems. The procedures
used in developing the source library and determining the respective sources for the
two monitored catchments is discussed in Carroll et al (2004; Paper 6).
297
The main outcome from this study indicated that higher percentages of human E. coli
in collected water samples were in those areas that did not have appropriate soil and
site conditions for sewage effluent treatment. This is in agreement with the earlier
study (Chapter 7), which showed that concentrations of faecal coliforms and E. coli
were influenced by the type of soil in the monitored catchments. However, of more
significance and apparent throughout all monitored locations, was that during drier
periods, higher percentages of human E. coli isolates were found in water samples
when compared to non-human source isolates. This is related to two significant
factors. Firstly, rainfall resulted in an increase in the overall number of faecal
bacteria in the water source. This was due to increased numbers of faecal bacteria
being washed into the surface water with surface runoff from the different sources,
such as domesticated animals and wildlife located throughout the catchments.
Consequently, higher percentages of non-human sources were more dominant during
these high rainfall periods. However, during drier conditions, the main source of
contamination was found to be of human origin, particularly as the investigated
waterways flowed through the urbanised developments using OWTS. Therefore,
although the overall magnitude of faecal bacteria numbers increases substantially
after rainfall, the respective sources of contamination are more evenly distributed
between several sources. However, during dry conditions, although lower overall
numbers of faecal bacteria were observed, the major source was found to be of
human origin. This suggests that a continuous source of human faecal contamination,
such as a result of poorly performing OWTS, is present. This is an important issue
that needs to be considered when assessing the public health risks to water resources.
The likelihood of human contamination from OWTS is more apparent during drier
conditions.
10.3 Integrated Risk Framework for OWTS
The utilisation of risk-based approaches for OWTS has become more prominent in
recent years due to the inherent environmental and public health concerns caused by
poor OWTS performance. Although several risk-based approaches have been
developed for the assessment and management of OWTS, several deficiencies in
these approaches have however undermined their overall usefulness and acceptance.
These include:
298
1. lack of scientific data and knowledge on the development of the risk process and
assessment of risks associated with the failure of OWTS;
2. difficulty in the development of a framework for the incorporation of OWTS
siting and design, environmental and public health risk assessment into a single
integrated approach;
3. common approach of assessment of risks based on computer models rather than
real world scenarios, which in turn requires subjective user input and
interpretation;
4. no assessment of existing environmental and public health risk levels associated
with OWTS is undertaken. Modelled risk scenarios are generally based on
cumulative risk processes established from baseline or zero risk levels; and
5. lack of assessment of risk associated with groundwater contamination caused by
OWTS.
In developing a scientifically robust and cohesive risk-based framework that is

generic and can be universally applied, these deficiencies need to be investigated.
This will allow the integration of scientific knowledge into risk assessment and
management concepts, with the implementation of appropriate performance goals for
successful management and mitigation of the associated risks.
The main aim of the current research project was to satisfy these identified research
deficiencies and to utilise the respective outcomes in the development of a risk-based
approach to OWTS siting, design and management. Consequently, an integrated risk
framework was developed to accommodate this risk-based approach. Figure 10.2
provides the generic risk framework developed. The respective processes utilised and
risk assessment developed through the construction of this framework is described by
Carroll et al (2004; Paper 7).
299
Integrated Risk Assessment Process
Public Health OWTS siting and

Stage 1: Risk assessment and risk
Environmental design
Risk Assessment Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment
Review and Monitor

map development
Low High
Stage 2: Detailed Assessment
Current Detailed
Standards/Guide Assessment for
lines suitable at risk areas
Management program to
mitigate assessed risks
Stage 3: Management and mitigation
Figure 10.2: Integrated Risk Assessment Framework for OWTS (Carroll et al 2004)
The integrated risk assessment framework for OWTS has several innovations which
are typically not undertaken in existing approaches. The developed risk assessment
process adopts an integrated approach, with the aim of providing an assessment of
the different risk facets into a single cohesive process. This eliminates the issue of
identifying and characterising the risks associated with OWTS, with separate
assessments undertaken for the environmental and public health risks. Individual risk
assessment approaches tend to be approached using different methodologies. This
inadvertently causes different variations in risk assessment processes, techniques and
data utilisation to be adopted and therefore introduces uncertainty throughout the
assessment process. Integration of the different risk facets removes these problems
(Bridges 2003, Federa 1998). Additionally, the developed framework quantifies the
respective levels of risk associated with OWTS based on established scientific data
analysis, which has not been adequately implemented into other OWTS risk
assessment approaches.
The assessment of risks undertaken in existing risk models such as OSRAS (Kenway
et al 2001), are based on available data which in most cases is derived from
anecdotal or empirical relationships and may not be scientifically defensible.
Additionally, risk associated with public health and environmental hazards are
300
obtained from model outputs, which can produce uncertainty throughout the risk
assessment phase. Thirdly, the assessment of the inherent risks associated with
groundwater as a result of OWTS has not been utilised in any existing risk
assessment process developed to-date in Australia, known to the author. The main
reason for this is that most local regulatory authorities in Australia, particularly in
Southeast Queensland, do not have sufficient information on groundwater conditions
within their area. This is generally related to the fact that most existing water
supplies are obtained from surface water resources. However, the need to protect
groundwater resources is becoming increasingly important. Due to the increasing
need to identify potential new water sources for rapidly developing areas,
groundwater will become important in the future.
The developed integrated risk framework consists of three major stages for the
assessment and management of the risks associated with OWTS. The integrated risk
assessment process established through Stage 1 (Risk assessment and risk map
development) allowed the assessment of the risks related to OWTS siting and design
(this involves an assessment of the contributing hazards related to site and soil
characteristics, landscape positioning and planning issues), environmental and public
health hazards to be undertaken. Quantification of these risks was conducted through
field investigations and analysis of scientific data, as described in Chapters 3 to 8.
Once quantified, the characterised risks associated with each identified hazard were
incorporated into a GIS and risk zone maps were produced to spatially display the
characterised risks. The developed GIS database combined the individual risk layers
into a single risk map indicating low and at risk (medium and high risk) areas via a
boolean overlay process.
Stage 2 (Detailed assessment) of the risk framework details the level of assessment
and management required to ensure proper treatment performance of OWTS is
achieved. Areas indicated as being at risk were required to undergo further detailed
assessment to ensure that the most suitable treatment system which will not lead to
adverse environmental and public health impacts is utilised. Due to the frameworks
flexibility, the exact assessment requirements to be utilised is at the discretion of the
stakeholders and regulatory authorities. However, as an example, for areas indicated
as being at risk due to poor soil conditions, more detailed soil investigation,
301
including scientific analysis of soil samples should be conducted to assess the soil
suitability of the investigated area. Additionally, more thorough investigations of the
other associated hazards contributing to at risk areas should be conducted.
Finally, Stage 3 (Management and mitigation) involved employing suitable

management and mitigation measures to ensure that the characterised risks were
suitably managed. Similar to Stage 2, the implementation of appropriate management
protocols for mitigating assessed risks is at the discretion of the stakeholders and
local authorities. This was due to the fact that differences in the limiting hazards, and
appropriate management protocols may differ between local authorities.
Consequently, to ensure that the developed framework was sufficiently flexible to be
universally accepted, the implementation of specific management processes at a
generic level was not appropriate. Appropriate risk management processes should be
developed to specifically target the identified risks, and not developed as standard
techniques.
302
CHAPTER 11.0
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATED RISK FRAMEWORK,
GOLD COAST REGION
The research undertaken for this project was conducted in collaboration with Gold
Coast City Council (GCCC). The generic integrated risk framework developed was
modified with the implementation of the necessary assessment and management
requirements to allow incorporation into the Gold Coast City Planning Scheme. The
modified framework developed for GCCC is given in Figure 11.1. Two major
modifications were incorporated into this framework, including the additional
processes developed for the improved assessment of at risk regions and the
inclusion of a critical point monitoring (CPM) program as an additional management
strategy. The implementation of the CPM program is discussed in detail in Section
11.5. The respective processes for developing and implementing the integrated risk
framework for assessment and management of OWTS for Gold Coast City Council
are discussed below.
11.1 Problem Formulation and Hazard Identification
Following the general risk assessment/management framework as specified in AS

4630:1999, the first stage in implementing the OWTS risk framework was problem
formulation and identification of the respective research tasks to be undertaken. This
entailed the following; (i) identification of relevant stakeholders who will need to
participate in the project, (ii) identification of areas within Gold Coast region that are
highly sensitive to the use of OWTS, (iii) development of a logical process for
progressing from initial project development to final framework implementation, and
(iv) identification of the important hazards associated with OWTS that are critical for
the Gold Coast region. These issues were resolved by conducting several stakeholder
workshops held in conjunction with Gold Coast City Council.
303
CHAPTER 11.0 Implementation of Integrated Risk Framework, Gold Coast City
Integrated Risk Assessment Process
Environ. Risk PH Risk OWTS siting

Assessment Assessment and design
Risk
Assess Assess Soil

Nutrient Microbiology
Concentration
Lot Size
Phosphorus Nitrogen Faecal BST - Additional soil tests and assessment

Bacteria Soil
source based on Soil suitability framework
(Carroll et al 2004) to determine level
Setback
Assessment of OWTS in High Risk areas

of risk
Risk = probability of failure = P(L > R) Risk = probability of failure = P(L > R) Distances
L = Pollutant concn L = E.coli concn x %human classification
R = Water quality threshold R = Water quality threshold
Assessment of slope based on current
Slope Slope guidelines and literature. Values differ
regarding surface or subsurface
dispersal
Flood
Alternative system designs or assess
Plain Flood impact if are flooded
Plain
High
Assessment of risk
involving system density Density Amend Existing New System
after system amendment
Will new system
Lot Size Density increase density
1. Needs to b on A3 Low (Planning adversely affecting
2. figure title and Can new system be Setback assess risks
installed with suitable distances on
number? setback distances while Setback distances assessed using
AS1547 and lot Setback
minimising risks minimum setback distance to Setback
existing codes distances off
lot
water resource based on existing, Distances
environmental or public health
risk
Risk Management and Mitigation Protocols

304
Chapter 11.0 Implementation of Integrated Risk Framework, Gold Coast City
All stakeholders who were perceived to have an interest in the development and
implementation of the integrated risk framework were identified. These stakeholders
included Gold Coast City Council officers, OWTS regulators, environmental health
officers, developers, plumbers and inspectors, soil assessors, risk assessors and
community groups. The inclusion of stakeholders was fundamental for the
development of the framework with their involvement throughout the decision
making process. Additionally, with the current lack of scientific information and
knowledge in the use of OWTS, the inclusion of stakeholders throughout the
development of the framework allowed the transfer of knowledge and scientific
advances achieved in the assessment of OWTS. The initial identification of sensitive
areas in relation to OWTS in the Gold Coast region was undertaken in discussions
with the stakeholders. Several areas were identified as highly sensitive due to both,
environmental and public health issues. These areas are shown in Figure 11.2. The
identification of sensitive areas was achieved through the assessment of several
parameters including unsatisfactory soil and site characteristics, contamination of
water resources, failing systems or high densities of OWTS. These identified areas
formed the basis for several field investigations and assessments as discussed in
Chapters 3-9.
The next stage in the project was to develop a logical progression from the
identification of sensitive areas through to the processes of hazard identification, risk
assessment and management, framework development and finally the
implementation of the framework into the GCCC Planning Scheme. Based on the
information received from the various stakeholders, a Logic Model as described by
McLaughlin and Jordan (1999) was developed as shown in Figure 11.3. The model
outlines the use of logical sequences to identify the required outcomes from the
project and the steps and processes to be followed to successfully to achieve these
outcomes. This allowed the stakeholders to visualise how the project was to be
formulated and developed, through to the conducting of field investigations and the
analysis of collected data. It also allowed the identification of various stages at which
the communication and transfer of scientific information and outcomes back to the
stakeholders was crucial.
305
Figure 11.2: Areas within Gold Coast Region initially identified as sensitive to
OWTS and resultant environmental and public health issues
306
Outcomes
For Customers
Resources Activities Outputs
Reached Short term
Short term Intermediate Long term
Workshops and Data collection Scientific data and For academic and Scientific knowledge of Data and newfound
stakeholders, project analysis and research, research publications Industry researchers effluent renovation scientific knowledge
partners and funding, workshops documented
researchers
Workshops and Risk Framework Environmental, For assessors, Development of individual Development of integrated
stakeholders, project development, Public Health and regulators and local risk frameworks for risk framework
partners and funding, workshops OWTS Risk authorities environmental, public
researchers assessment health and OWTS risk
Stakeholders, project GIS database GIS database of risk For assessors, GIS database development Integrated Risk map for
partners and funding, development assessment regulators, local for individual risk layers OWTS assessment
researchers authorities and
stakeholders
Stakeholders, project Data analysis and Identification of For local authorities Identification of high risk Critical Point Monitoring
partners and funding, CPM program critical parameters and management areas and important stressor Program for critical stressor
researchers, development and CPM personal endpoints endpoints
Management
Project partners and Finalise Risk Utilisation of Risk For local authorities Integration of Risk More appropriate means of Better management of
funding, researchers, Framework and map Framework for stakeholders and Framework into appropriate assessing suitability of OWTS and reduction of
Management assessment and user/owners of standards and codes OWTS in risk areas environmental and public
management OWTS OWTS health risks
External Influences: Continued research by other individuals and institutions, planning and development of research areas, new technology
Figure 11.3: Logic model showing the logical sequences from project formulation to implementation of risk framework for Gold Coast City.
307
The final stage in the formulation of the project was to identify the key OWTS
hazards that were significant for the Gold Coast region. Although all inherent
hazards need to be identified and taken into consideration, the identification of
hazards that are the most significant allowed the focus of the research to be
conducted towards the main concerns in the research area. The key hazards identified
through this process are described in Table 11.1. From the identification of the
hazards involving OWTS siting and design, public health and environmental
impacts, several initial criteria, including soil suitability and planning and setback
distances that reflected these hazards were selected. A preliminary risk assessment
was undertaken to develop an initial risk map for the Gold Coast region. These
criteria and the resulting map are provided in Table 11.2 and Figure 11.4
respectively. The initial risk map enabled the identification of other potentially
sensitive areas in addition to those already identified. These additional areas were
also investigated as part of the research program undertaken. Through the logical
development of the risk framework, the initial risk map was refined regularly as the
research progressed and additional scientific information became available.
Table 11.1: Key Hazards and contributing factors related to OWTS
Item Key Hazard Contributing Factors

15. Soil
16. Planning (Lot size)
17. Environmental Sensitivity
OWTS Release of contaminants due to
18. Flooding
(Treatment system failure of On-site wastewater
19. Topography
and disposal area) treatment system
20. Loading rates
21. Operation and
maintenance practices
11. Soil Type
Inability to renovate effluent and 12. Depth of soil horizons
Surrounding Soil prevent contaminants from reaching 13. Physical characteristics
groundwater and/or surface water 14. Chemical characteristics
15. Water table depth
Contamination of 9. Surface exposure
water/surrounding environment 10. Water supply
such that a considerable health risk (ground/surface)
Public Health is evident due to the release of 11. Aerosols
contaminants (namely pathogens) 12. Pests (mosquitoes etc)
which have an impact on human
health
Release of contaminants into the 9. Surface runoff
receiving environment 10. Groundwater discharge
Environmental (ground/surface waters) causing 11. Flooding
environmental degradation such as 12. Water table
eutrophication.
308
Table 11.2: Criteria used for establishing preliminary risk maps

Soil Criteria
Risk Criteria Implication
High Soils that have imperfect or poor Soils that have poor drainage
drainage ability inhibit the disposal of effluent
Hydrosol Soils; soils that are seasonally through the soil, which reduces the
or permanently saturated soils renovation ability.
Hydrosol soils, although generally
well drained sandy soils, are
saturated, making drainage poor.
Medium Soils that are moderately well drained Moderately well drained soils allow
Anthroposols (man-made soils) and soils slow drainage, which can affect the
which have been altered soils renovation ability
Low Soils that are well drained Soils that have good drainage,
increase its ability to renovate
effluent
Planning Criteria
High Less than 0.4 Ha Minimum lot size for developments in
Urban residential areas developed for these residential areas must not be less
high-density housing which are than:
provided with reticulated water, but 1. Residential - 400m2
utilise on-site wastewater systems 2. Detached dwellings-600- 2000m2
3. Village -600m2
4. Hinterland subdivision -4000m2
Medium 0.4 to 4 Ha Lot sizes must not be less than 8000m2
Park Living residential areas developed minimum and no larger than 4 Ha
for low-density housing with reticulated
water and utilise on-site wastewater
treatment
Low Greater than 4 Ha Rural residential areas with lot sizes
Rural residential areas utilising both on- greater than 4 Ha, with maximum lot
site wastewater treatment and water sizes up to 20 Ha
supplies
Sewered Urban residential areas with high density Research not required in this area.
housing with both reticulated water and
sewerage
Environmental Sensitivity Criteria

High Less than 100m from nearest water source Greater risk of contamination of surface
water resources from both surface and
subsurface flow.
Medium Between 100 and 500m from nearest water May impose some risk of contamination
source from surface and subsurface flow, more
likely surface flow.
Low Greater than 500m from nearest water source Minimum risk of contamination of water
resources.
309
Figure 11.4: Preliminary risk zone map established for Gold Coast Region (Risk
classifications are determined through integration of assessed criteria)
310
11.2 Integrated Risk Assessment
The integrated risk assessment process for the Gold Coast framework, as depicted in
Figure 11.1, was conducted through the same steps as discussed in Chapter 9 and
Section 10.3. This involved the assessment of the three main risk assessment
processes; (1) OWTS siting and design risk; (2) Environmental Risk; and (3) Public
Health Risk assessment.
11.2.1 OWTS Siting and Design Risk Assessment
Determining the OWTS siting and design risk involved characterisation of several
identified hazards, including soil suitability, planning, setback distances, slope and
flooding. The assessment of the identified hazards was conducted following the
relevant processes explained in Chapter 9. Acceptable risk levels for these identified
hazards were defined through scientific investigation as part of the research
undertaken, or based on values established through current research literature
identified as being suitable for providing acceptable OWTS treatment performance.
Additionally, the adoption of acceptable risk levels was also discussed through
consultation with the respective stakeholder groups. The acceptable risk values for
each of the identified hazards in relation to the Gold Coast region are provided in
Table 11.3, with the respective processes in determining the acceptable risk levels
and their assessment discussed in the following sections.
Soil
Establishing the soil risks in relation to OWTS performance for the Gold Coast
region required the assessment of two important relationships. Firstly, soil suitability
for effluent renovation was established according to the developed soil suitability
framework as discussed in Chapter 3. Additionally, it was also considered necessary
to investigate the nutrient regimes (namely for nitrogen and phosphorus) and develop
risk zones indicating the respective areas that retained high levels of nutrients. This
could be detrimental for the use of OWTS as the excess nutrients supplied to the soil
through effluent discharge could exceed the capacity of the soil to attenuate nutrients,
leading contamination of groundwater and surface water.
311
Table 11.3: Acceptable risk levels used for assessment of OWTS hazards
Risk Levels
Hazard Factor Low Medium High Comments

1 Kurosols and 3 Kandosols and 5 Organosols Determined according to Soil Suitability
Soil Suitability
Chromosols Rudosols 6 Vertosols and Framework (Carroll et al 2004). Utilises soil
Soil for effluent
2 Ferrosols and 4 Podosols and Sodosols renovation ability, soil permeability and soil
renovation
Dermosols Tenosols 7 Hydrosols drainage characteristics
Nutrients Nitrogen <0.2% 0.2-0.3% >0.3% Typical soil nutrient ratings as specified in
ANRA for agriculture
Phosphorus <0.003% 0.003-0.005% >0.005%
Planning Lot Size > 4 Ha 0.4-4 Ha <0.4 Ha (4000m2) Based on Gold Coast City Planning Scheme
Setback Specified setbacks as per On-site Sewage
normal >100m 50-100m 50m
Distances Code (DNRM 2002)
Setbacks utilised in environmentally sensitive
sensitive >200m 100-200m 100m
areas
Acceptable risk level adopted as 10%. Slope >

Slope 10% > 10%
10% at risk of causing contamination issues.
Areas within the 100yr ARI at risk causing

Above 100 yr
Flooding Within 1 in 100yr ARI boundary contamination, and failure of system
ARI
components during flood events
312
In determining the respective soil risks, detailed investigations were conducted to

evaluate the soil suitability for effluent renovation as described by Carroll et al
(2004; Paper 1). Soil samples were collected from 73 sampling locations throughout
the region, and analysed for several parameters indicated as being influential in
regard to providing adequate treatment and dispersal of effluent. The soil parameters
analysed and their respective influence in effluent renovation are described in
Chapters 3-5. Figure 11.5 illustrates the spatial distribution of the soil sampling
locations. These locations were selected in order to obtain a wide selection of the
most common soil groups in Gold Coast region. The framework distributes the
corresponding soils into several levels of suitability, as shown in Table 11.3. In order
to reduce these levels to the respective low, medium and high risk zones, the
resulting soil suitability indices were subsequently divided based on the following
conditions; (i) soils that had medium to good renovation, with medium permeability
and well drained - low risk; (ii) soils with medium renovation ability, medium to
high permeability and moderately well to well drained - medium risk; and (iii) soils
with poor to good renovation ability, low or high permeability, and poor to
moderately well drained - high risk. The separation of the high risk soils was
determined on a worse case scenario, defined through the combination of
unsuitable soil renovation ability, permeability and drainage criteria, or based on
individual criteria due to extreme cases, such as very low permeability or poor
drainage. The resulting risk levels associated with the defined soil types common to
the Gold Coast region are provided in Table 11.3. Figure B.1 (Appendix B)
highlights the developed soil risk zones for effluent renovation suitability.
The acceptable levels of nutrients within the soil were assessed on the adopted
nutrient level regimes commonly used in the agricultural industry. Table 11.3
provides the acceptable nutrient levels utilised in the development of soil risk zones.
To establish the risk zones for nutrient levels based on these criteria, the respective
nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations obtained from the soil investigations were
input into a GIS database. Nutrient risk zones were calculated by kriging (using an
inverse distance weighting model) between established data points using a maximum
likelihood model. These established nutrient risk zones are provided in Figure B.2
and Figure B.3 (Appendix B) respectively.
313
Figure 11.5: Distribution of soil samples collected throughout Gold Coast City for
assessment of soil suitability for effluent renovation
The resulting cumulative soil risk zones for Gold Coast, based on the soil suitability
framework and nutrient levels, were constructed by applying an overlay process
(using Boolean operators) within the GIS. Essentially, for each risk zone a numeric
values of 1 (low risk), 2 (medium risk) or 3 (low risk) was assigned to each
developed risk layer. The corresponding values in each layer were multiplied
314
together, and reclassified according to the newly established risk zones for soil as
shown in Figure B.4 (Appendix. B)
Planning
Planning is an important factor that needs to be considered when assessing the risk
associated with OWTS siting and design. Essentially, planning is related to relative
lot size of the development, and consequently the respective density of OWTS. The
lot size that an OWTS is to be installed has to be sufficient to allow proper treatment
and dispersal of discharged wastewater. A lot size too small may not provide
sufficient land to establish an effluent application area. Consequently, this may lead
to effluent overloading and hydraulic failure of the application area. In addition to
having adequate space for adequate use of OWTS, the size of the respective lot must
also allow sufficient room to incorporate an appropriate setback distance. This is to
prevent any pollutant contamination from leaving the lot itself. This issue is related
to all of the site and soil characteristics that need to be assessed prior to installation
of an OWTS. Lot size is also related to the density of OWTS in the surrounding area.
Smaller lot sizes will enable higher housing densities, and consequently increase the
number of OWTS in unsewered developments.
The corresponding risk levels associated with planning and lot size were established
according to the current Gold Coast City Council Planning Scheme. Lot sizes of area
less than 4000m2 (0.4Ha) were deemed to induce a significant risk related to poor
treatment performance issues and high densities of OWTS. Areas between 0.4 to 4Ha
were considered to present a medium risk, with areas greater that 4Ha considered
low risk. These corresponding risk levels were implemented into the GIS, and a map
showing the risk zones for planning was developed as shown in Figure B.5,
(Appendix B).
Slope
The significance of slope in relation to poor OWTS performance is associated in
three main ways. Steep slopes increase the amount of runoff produced, which in turn
increases the potential risk of contamination of surface water. Hydraulic failure or
surfacing of effluent from subsurface systems, as well as the use of surface irrigation,
can be a concern in areas of high slope for this reason. Secondly, the use of
315
subsurface application areas adjacent to steep slopes may cause lateral flow of
effluent to take place through the soil layers resulting in seepage of effluent down
slope of the dispersal area.
Typically, slopes in the range of 6-10% are generally viewed as suitable for surface
irrigation systems, with steeper slopes contributing to higher runoff volumes and
hence higher risks of pollution (Kleene et al 1993, AS1547:2000, Wells 2001). For
subsurface dispersal systems, slopes of 10-20% are commonly accepted as the norm
(Brouwer 1983, AS1547:2000, US EPA 2002), with slopes greater than 20%
considered inappropriate for providing adequate dispersal of effluent. This can result
in failure of the subsurface system leading to surfacing of effluent.
Consequently, the threshold value for acceptable risk was taken as 10%, being the
maximum slope that will have minimal effect from surface irrigation systems, and
the minimum slope for subsurface dispersal systems to provide adequate renovation
of effluent. Slopes less than 10% were deemed as low risk, with steeper slopes
classified as high risk, leading to inadequate effluent renovation and contamination
issues. To develop the respective risk zones for slope, several GIS operations had to
be undertaken. Firstly, a digital elevation model (DEM) was constructed for the Gold
Coast region based on 10 metre contours. The developed DEM was then reclassified
based on the adopted acceptable risk profiles to spatially identify the areas with
slopes greater than 10%. The resulting risk map is shown in Figure B.6 (Appendix
B).
Setback Distances
Ensuring appropriate separation or setback distances between the on-site system and
nearby water sources, is a crucial issue. Setback distances are included in current
standards and guidelines to minimise potential environmental and public health risks
due to poor OWTS performance. Setback distances implicitly include risk-based
management ideals into current performance standards. The current setback distances
stipulated in the On-site Sewage Code (DNRM 2002) recommends that a horizontal
distance of 50m (primary effluent) between the system and adjacent water sources be
used, and a vertical distance of 1.2m (primary effluent) between the dispersal field
and the water table. Reduced setbacks have been specified for secondary treated
316
effluent. However, these values typically evolve around public health issues with
distances based on viral transport and fate models. Although indicating that these
distances may be sufficient for protection of public health, in some cases,
environmental risks may be significantly higher than the public health issues. An
initial assessment of the potential for increasing setback distances was undertaken
through this research, and the outcomes were discussed through a published
conference paper (Appendix A). Through this study, it was found that the ability of
nutrients, in particular nitrate, to move from high densities of OWTS would be
significantly higher than that of the adopted setbacks obtained through viral die off
models.
The assessment of risk associated with setback distances was established based on
the currently adopted criteria stipulated in AS1547:2000 and the Queensland On-site
Sewerage Code (DNRM 2000). In the determination of risk zones, areas within a
distance of 50m were considered to have a high risk and those within a distance
between 50 100m was considered to be of medium risk. However, for areas found
to have a high environmental risk, the current setback distances were considered
inadequate for protection of environmental values. Hence, it was considered
necessary to increase the setbacks distances in these areas to demarcate high and
medium risk zones. For these particular cases, setback distances were increased to
100m horizontal distance for high risk, and 100-200m for medium risk areas. These
setback distances were used to develop buffer zones surrounding the major water
resources within the Gold Coast region, as shown in Figure B.7 (Appendix B).
Flooding
Flooding of treatment system and dispersal areas can be a significant issue depending
on several factors. Firstly, if an effluent dispersal area is flooded, there is a strong
possibility of contamination of the flood waters. However, this is dependent on the
average recurrence interval (ARI) of the particular flood event. Large floods will
essentially dilute the exposed effluent, minimising the potential risks associated with
contamination. This may not be the case with smaller flood events, with flooding of
dispersal areas allowing the transportation of effluent pollutants off-site. However,
large events will flood larger areas, and therefore higher numbers of OWTS may be
affected. This may increase the potential risk by reducing any dilution effects as a
317
result of the higher numbers of OWTS exposed to the flood event. The most
commonly adopted flood level for assessing the potential risk from OWTS is the 100
year ARI. Adopting this flood level as the acceptable risk also inherently includes
lower flood levels within the identified risk areas. Very few studies have investigated
the probability of contamination from OWTS as a result of flood events. It can be
difficult, if not impossible, to collected representative data during flood events.
Therefore, in assessing the risks associated with flood events, the 100yr ARI flood
boundary was used as the acceptable risk level. The region within this boundary was
considered at high risk, with outside regions at low risk. The respective risk zones
developed for flood effects for the Gold Coast region are provided in Figure B.8
(Appendix B).
11.2.2 Environmental and Public Health Risk
The assessment of both, environmental and public health risk was established based
on assessing the risk of contamination at monitored locations. This was developed
around an engineering risk analysis approach as outlined by Ganoulis (1994). The
risk established through this process is determined by the probability of failure of
contaminant concentrations failing acceptable threshold concentrations and is
equivalent to:

L

Risk = probabilty of failure = Pf = P( L > R) = f LR ( L, R)dR dL (2)
0 0
where L = pollutant loading or concentration and R = resistance or prescribed water
quality standard or threshold. More detailed discussion of this risk assessment
process is provided in Chapter 9. The specified water quality parameters for
environmental (focusing on nitrate and phosphate) and public health (faecal
coliforms and E.coli) risk assessment were obtained from monitored groundwater
and surface water locations throughout Gold Coast region. Water samples were
collected on a fortnightly basis over a four month period and analysed for the
respective contaminants. The monitoring locations used for sampling are shown in
Figure 11.6. The risk (probability) of monitored contaminants failing to meet the
specified water quality guidelines for both drinking water (NHMRC 1996) and
318
recreational water and aesthetics (recreational, primary and secondary contact)

(ANZECC 2000) was determined. Respective probabilities were established
according to fitted probability distribution functions based on the analysed data for
each assessed area. For an area to have a low environmental or public health risk, the
arithmetic mean of the assessed contaminants had to be lower than the stipulated
guideline level 100% of the time. The area is considered at risk whenever the
guideline is exceeded.
Environmental risk was determined based on the assessment of nitrate and phosphate
contamination of surface and groundwater. Investigation of groundwater and surface
water quality at Jacobs Well and Cabbage Tree Point has been discussed in Chapter
6. However, several other areas as depicted in Figure 11.6 were also monitored for
the assessment of environmental and health risks. Analysed water quality data for all
monitored locations are provided in Appendix C. The adopted threshold values used
in the risk assessment were those specified in the ANZECC (2000) water quality
guidelines for aesthetics. This also relates to the limiting concentrations needed to
cause nutrient enrichment and subsequent eutrophication of water resources and
algae blooms. Table 11.4 provides the adopted guideline values employed in the
environmental risk assessments. In establishing the respective probabilities for
failing the threshold values, cumulative lognormal probability functions for nitrate
and phosphate were fitted to the analysed data, as depicted in Figure 11.7a d. Table
11.5 provides the determined probabilities for the corresponding monitoring
locations.
Environmental risk maps were developed based on the quantified risks for the
monitored locations. Those areas that failed to meet the specified water quality
guideline threshold values were considered an environmental risk. The respective
probabilities for these monitored areas were projected to other unmonitored areas
that retained similar soil, site and planning characteristics in order to establish risk
profiles for the entire Gold Coast region. The developed environmental risk maps are
provided in Figure B.9 (Appendix B).
319
Figure 11.6: Groundwater and surface water monitoring locations used for assessing
environmental and public health risks
320
Table 11.4: Concentrations threshold values used for risk assessment

Issue Parameter Response Guideline values (threshold) Reference
ANZECC
NO3N General Water Quality 10mg/L
(2000)
40g/L Freshwater Rivers ANZECC
Eutrophication*
Environmental 15g/L Estuaries (2000)
PO43-- P General Water Quality No Guidelines
50g/L Freshwater Rivers ANZECC
Eutrophicationa
30g/L Estuaries (2000)
NHMRC
Faecal 0 cfu/100mL (1996)
Drinking water
Coliforms ANZECC
(2000)
Primary Contact
ANZECC
(recreation, 150 cfu/100mL
(2000)
swimming)
Secondary Contact ANZECC
1000 cfu/100mL
irrigation, boating (2000)
NHMRC
(1996)
Public Health E.coli Drinking water 0 cfu/100mL
ANZECC
(2000)
Primary Contact
(recreation, 150 cfu/100mL
swimming)
Secondary Contact
1000 cfu/100mL
(irrigation, boating)
NHMRC
(1996)
NO3 N Drinking (ingestion) 10mg/L
ANZECC
(2000)
321
CDF Nitrate Groundwater

1
0.9
Cumlative Probability, P
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Concentration (mg/L)
CTP JW CO BON BE
Figure 11.7a: Cumulative probability distributions for nitrate at groundwater

monitoring locations
CDF Phosphate Groundwater

1
0.9
Cumulative Probability, P
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CTP JW CO BON BE
Figure 11.7b: Cumulative probability distributions for phosphate for groundwater

322
CDF Nitrate Surface Water

1
0.9
Cumlative Probability, P
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CTP JW CO BON TAL Thresh1
Figure 11.7c: Cumulative probability distributions for nitrate for surface water
CDF Phosphate Surface Water

1
0.9
Cumulative Probability, P
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CTP JW CO BON TAL
Figure 11.7d: Cumulative probability distributions for phosphate for surface water
323
Table11.5: Calculated probabilities of nutrients exceeding adopted water quality guidelines
Contaminant NO3- PO43+

Water ARL1: 10 mg/L ARL: 50 g/L (Fresh) 30 g/L (Marine)
Mean, St. Dev. Mean, St. Dev. P(c>t)
Location Source mg/L CDF2 P3(c>t) % mg/L CDF %
Cabbage
Tree Ground 23.140 19.978 L 77.4 4.195 5.387 L 100
Point Surface 6.248 3.011 N 9.5 2.665 4.437 L 100
Jacobs Well Ground 43.734 46.214 L 89.8 16.075 7.408 L 100

Surface 8.623 4.311 L 29.1 5.675 5.177 N 100
Coomera Ground 58.953 57.110 L 96.2 17.985 8.967 N 100

Surface 9.260 4.944 L 34.3 4.246 1.944 N 100
Bonogin Ground 58.530 49.890 L 97.8 8.190 8.551 L 100

Surface 7.323 2.711 N 16.2 11.192 5.899 L 100
Beechmont Ground 8.745 3.080 N 34.2 3.257 2.216 L 100
Tallebudgera Surface 6.929 2.484 N 10.8 14.951 7.674 N 100
324
The assessment of public health risk from OWTS involved two major stages. Firstly,
collected groundwater and surface water samples from monitored locations (Figure
11.6) were analysed for faecal coliforms (FC) and confirmed Escherichia coli (E.
coli). An initial public health risk assessment was conducted on the obtained E. coli
counts against the acceptable threshold values for drinking water and for primary and
secondary contact, as outlined in NHMRC (1996) and ANZECC (2000). This allowed
an assessment based on faecal indicators which are typically used for assessing faecal
contamination of water resources. Cumulative log normal probability distribution
functions were fitted to the collected E. coli data from monitored locations and are
provided in Figure 11.8.
CDF E. coli Groundwater

1
0.9
Cumulative Probabilit, P
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Count cfu/100mL
CTP JW CO BO BE
Figure 11.8a: Cumulative probability distributions for E. coli for groundwater

325
CDF E. coli Surface Water

1
0.9
Cumulative Probabilit, P
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Count cfu/100mL
CTP JW CO BO TAL
Figure 11.8b: Cumulative probability distributions for E. coli for surface water
The calculated risks (probabilities) for public health based on E. coli counts are given
in Table 11.6. As indicated, all monitored locations, for both surface and
groundwater, failed to meet the specified guideline for drinking water. However, this
is not a major concern as the water resources in the monitored locations are used
primarily for recreational and gardening purposes. Therefore, the primary and
secondary contact guidelines are more appropriate for assessing the public health risk.
However, as indicated in Chapters 7 and 8, the actual source of faecal contamination
based on simple faecal indicators such as FC and E. coli, may have originated from
several sources. This would inevitably increase the level of uncertainty in the risk
assessment, and lead to an over estimation of the derived risk. Consequently, the use
of ARP to source track human faecal contamination, and subsequently link this to
OWTS was conducted.
The use of ARP for two monitored catchments at Bonogin and Tallebudgera Creeks
were assessed and detailed descriptions of the scientific process used, and the
development and predicative capability of the ARP source database are described in
Chapter 8. However, several other monitored locations were also assessed using ARP,
and the identified sources of faecal contamination at each of the monitoring locations
326
are provided in Appendix D. The use of ARP allows a reduced uncertainty in

assessing public health risks compared to using general faecal indicators, due to the
identification of the respective sources. The percentage of human E. coli was
subsequently used to assess the risk to public health from OWTS. This was achieved
by reducing the number of E. coli in the analysed samples by the identified percentage
of human source E. coli. The corresponding public health risks established on this
basis are given in Table 11.6. Public Health risk maps were developed in the same
manner to that for environmental risks, with the resulting risk areas indicated in
Figure B.10 (Appendix B).
11.3 Development of Integrated Risk Maps
Development of the final integrated risk map for the Gold Coast region involved
several procedures developed through the use of GIS technology. The GIS employed
for this research project included MAPINFO version 7.0, a vector based GIS system,
and ARCVIEW version 8.0, a raster based GIS. MAPINFO is the commonly adopted
system that most local authorities, including GCCC, utilise for keeping databases
related to planning, design and assessment. Hence, most of the available information
obtained from GCCC for this research was in MAPINFO format. However, the ability
of MAPINFO for allowing overlays of spatial information and arithmetic
interpretation of spatial data is limited and most of the processes required for
developing the integrated risk maps would require substantial manual intervention if
MAPINFO was to be used for integrating the risk layers. Therefore, ARCVIEW
software was used for the initial construction of the risk maps, due to its superior
analytical tools and algorithms for overlaying and reclassifying. The final risk map
was subsequently converted to MAPINFO format.
The procedure for developing the integrated risk map involved overlaying each
individual layer obtained through the assessment of the various risks, established
during the risk assessment stage. The individual GIS layers included (1) soil; (2)
planning (Lot size); (3) setback distances; (4) slope; (5) flooding; (6) public health
risk; and (7) environmental risk. Layers (1) to (5) were first combined using boolean
327
Table 11.6 Calculated probabilities of Total and human E. coli exceeding adopted water quality guidelines
Contaminant E. Coli Drinking Water Primary Contact Secondary Contact

Total Human Total Human Total Human
E.coli2 E.coil3 E.coli E.coli E.coli E.coli
Water ARL1: 0 0 150 150 1000 1000
Mean, St. Dev.
Location Source mg/L CDF4 P5(c>t) % P(c>t) % P(c>t) % P(c>t) % P(c>t) % P(c>t) %
Cabbage
Tree Ground 152 586 L 100.0 31.0 33.2 10.3 1.0 0.1
Point Surface 170 250 L 100.0 63.4 33.7 21.4 6.4 1.4
Jacobs Well Ground 72 105 L 100.0 35.1 5.9 2.1 1.0 0.1
Surface 45 79 L 100.0 16.7 5.4 0.9 0.0 0.0
Coomera Ground 564 700 L 100.0 77.6 81.3 63.1 14.4 9.1
Surface 329 567 L 100.0 66.7 53.3 35.6 6.3 2.2
Bonogin Ground 250 631 L 100.0 38.2 36.5 13.9 4.6 0.6
Surface 164 147 L 100.0 42.4 39.4 16.7 5.3 0.9
Beechmont Ground 1 1 L 100.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tallebudgera Surface 101 60 L 100.0 35.8 16.0 5.7 5.0 0.3
328
overlays to produce the risk map for OWTS siting and design risks. This was then
overlayed with the public health and environmental risk maps to produce the final risk
map. A visualisation of the process utilised in obtaining the respective maps, and the
maps developed for each of the risk processes is provided in Figure B.11a and B.11b
(Appendix B). Each level of risk for each hazard was assigned a numeral value of 1
(low risk), 2 (medium risk) or 3 (low risk). Using an arithmetic overlay procedure, the
corresponding values in each layer were multiplied together and reclassified back to
the initial numerical values for identifying high, medium and low risk. For
implementing the developed integrated risk map for the Gold Coast region, identified
risk areas were additionally reduced to two major classifications, low risk and at
risk (medium and high risk) areas. This was undertaken to remove any discrepancies
between the determination of medium and high risks. Effectively, this follows the
same probability of failure, whereby an area at risk of causing environmental or
public health impacts is required to undergo an increased level of assessment. The
final combined integrated risk map for the Gold Coast region is presented in Figure
11.9. This map, along with the risk assessment criteria was implemented as part of the
GCCC planning scheme.
11.4 Assessment of at risk areas
Once the integrated risk zones for OWTS were established, the identification of
suitable assessment techniques for the appropriate assessment of at risk areas was
developed. Where the area of assessment falls within a low risk area, the currently
adopted standards and codes were considered as appropriate for the assessment and
management OWTS. This generally implies AS/NZS 1547:2000, the Australian
Standard for On-site Sewage Systems, as well as the locally adopted codes and
guidelines. However, as shown in the developed framework (Figure 11.1) if a low risk
area is rezoned for future development, this may subsequently increase the risk level
as a result of reduced lot sizes, and additional assessment based on the planning
requirements should be undertaken. For at risk areas, the additional assessment
requirements are determined according to the identified limiting hazards specified
through the assessed risk areas. Table 11.7 provides the limiting hazards that are
associated with the respective at risk regions, and the necessary requirements for
329
additional assessment. These limiting criteria are highlighted in the developed GIS
data base and resulting risk map, to indicate what additional assessment is required
within the categorised risk areas.
Figure 11.9: Final combined integrated risk map for the Gold Coast region
330
Table 11.7: Limiting Hazards for at risk areas, Gold Coast City
Risk Limitations
Hazard Factor Notation Limiting Hazard
Low High (at risk)
Inappropriate treatment of effluent, contamination of
Soil (S) Renovation ability r 1 and 21 3 to 71
water resources, environmental and public health risk
Runoff potential, waterlogging, effluent percolation,
Permeability p 0.005-0.5 m/d <0.005 or >0.5m/day
effluent retention
Imperfectly to poorly
Moderate to well Hydraulic failure, waterlogging, low treatment ability,
Drainage d drained, permanent or
drained contamination of groundwater
seasonal saturation
Nitrogen - TN and TN 0.3% TN > 0.3% Reduced nutrient attenuation, leaching of excess
Nutrients n
Phosphorus - TP TP 0.003% TP >0.003% nutrients, contamination of water resources
Increased system density, health and environmental
Planning (P) Lot size l > 4.0 Ha < 4.0 Ha
risks, contamination of water resources
Contamination of surface waters, health and
Setback (B) > 50m < 50m
environmental risks
Increased contaminant transport, contamination
Slope (G) < 10% > 10%
issues, system performance limitations
Transportation of effluent contaminants, system
Flood (F) Above 1 in 100 yr ARI2 Below 1 in 100 yr ARI2
failure, system component damage and electrocution
Probability mean
Mean Human3 E.coli
Human3 E.coli Contamination of water resources with pathogenic
Public Health (H) contaminants below
contaminants exceed organisms, risk to public health
threshold4
threshold4
Mean nutrient Probability mean Contamination of water resources with pathogenic
Environment (E) contaminants below nutrient contaminants organisms, risk to environment, nutrient enrichment,
threshold4 exceed threshold4 algae blooms
1
Determined according to Soil suitability for effluent renovation framework (Carroll et al 2004)
2
Average Recurrence Interval
3
Determined by source tracking using Antibiotic Resistance Pattern analysis
4
Stipulated thresholds for drinking water, recreational and aesthetics water quality (NHMRC 1996 and ANZECC 2000)
331
Chapter 11.0 Implementaion of Integrated Risk Framework, Gold Coast City
11.5 Critical Point Monitoring for Risk Management
The management of the inherent risks characterised through the integrated risk
framework for the Gold Coast region involved two main processes. Firstly,
management of OWTS was achieved by developing new and more appropriate
assessment guidelines as outlined in Section 10.2.4. This was effectively aimed at
mitigating the possible risk inherent in the use of OWTS in areas that are not
adequate in meeting the specified requirements set out in the standards and
guidelines. Secondly, a critical point monitoring (CPM) program to allow GCCC to
monitor the at risk areas for identified critical parameters was established. In a risk
management context, CPM identifies the critical points within a management system
that should be monitored to provide suitable mitigation of identified risks. Figure
11.10 provides the steps generally employed in a CPM program. In constructing the
integrated risk framework, the critical points associated with the at risk areas were
already identified. Therefore, the incorporation of the CPM program was easily
integrated into the overall framework. The critical parameters used for the CPM
program were identified through the research undertaken and included parameters
focusing on soil and site requirements and environmental and public health issues.
Table 11.8 highlights the critical parameters established for sensitive areas identified
through the respective data analysis. Essentially, these are based on the limiting
factors isolated through the risk assessment stage for the different at risk areas.
Integration of the developed integrated risk framework and risk maps into the Gold
Coast City planning scheme guidelines will enable the Gold Coast City Council to
determine which regions within their jurisdictional area are at risk of causing
detrimental environmental and public health impacts. This will enable GCCC to
incorporate best management practices in a more practical and efficient manner
specifically targeting at risk regions, and thereby mitigating the inherent risks.
332
Chapter 11.0 Implementaion of Integrated Risk Framework, Gold Coast City
1 2 3
Perform a system Determine critical Establish critical
hazard analysis monitoring points limits
Requirements for first 3 steps determined during integrated

risk assessment procedure
4
Establish
monitoring
procedures
CPM steps necessary for risk management and
mitigation protocols
7 6 5
Establish Establish Record Establish
Verification Keeping System corrective actions
Procedures if step 3 not meet
Figure 11.10: Critical Point Monitoring Process (adapted from Eliasson et al 2001)
Table 11.8: Critical parameters to be monitored as part of CPM for Gold Coast City
Critical Parameter to be
Location Resource
Monitored
Cabbage Tree
Groundwater Nitrate (NO3-), E.coli
Point
Surface Water E.coli
Jacobs Well Groundwater Nitrate (NO3-), Phosphate (PO43-)
Surface Water Nitrate (NO3-
Nitrate (NO3-), Phosphate (PO43-)
Coomera Groundwater
and E.coli
Nitrate (NO3-), Phosphate (PO43-)
Surface Water
and E.coli
Bonogin Groundwater Nitrate (NO3-), E.coli
Surface Water Phosphate (PO43-)), E.coli
Tallebudgera Surface Water Phosphate (PO43-)), E.coli
Lower Beechmont Groundwater Nitrate (NO3-)
333
CHAPTER 12.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 Conclusions
Due to the inherent treatment performance issues associated with OWTS, failure is a
common scenario and can lead to environmental and public health concerns.
Typically, these issues are related to the current assessment of site and soil
characteristics, and the general management of OWTS. In order to obtain sustainable
wastewater treatment through OWTS, more scientifically robust methods of
assessing site suitability is needed. The main focus of this research project was to
develop an integrated risk-based approach for assessing and managing on-site
wastewater treatment systems. The research aims and objectives were achieved
through the development of three primary fundamental processes. These were;
Hazard identification and characterisation

Hazard identification and characterisation was conducted through several
workshops held in conjunction with Gold Coast City Council and the invited
stakeholders. This allowed the key hazards of most concern associated with
OWTS performance to be identified. These key hazards were subsequently
characterised as part of the integrated risk assessment process.
Development of an integrated risk framework

The development of the individual risk assessments and integrated risk
framework required resolving several inherent deficiencies evident in the current
standards and codes for the assessment and management of OWTS. These were
achieved through the scientific investigations detailed in Chapters 3-9. The
investigations conducted focused on three key research areas; (i) assessment of
soil suitability for effluent renovation; (ii) assessment of contamination of ground
and surface waters as a result of OWTS failure; and (iii) integrated assessment of
OWTS siting and design, environmental and public health risks. These studies
334
Chapter 12.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
involved extensive field investigations, sampling and laboratory testing and

detailed data analysis.
Development of a Critical Point Monitoring program for risk management

To establish a risk management process to provide an appropriate management
regime for OWTS within the study region, a critical point monitoring program
(CPM) was formulated. This entailed the identification of the key critical
parameters that contribute to the characterised risks at monitored locations within
the study area. This was achieved through the research investigations described
in Chapters 6 and 7. The CPM allows more direct managerial procedures to be
implemented, targeting the specific hazards at sensitive areas throughout Gold
Coast Region.
In achieving the specified research aims and objectives, several detailed

investigations were conducted to resolve the identified deficiencies lacking in the
current assessment and management techniques. The assessment of soil suitability
for providing adequate treatment and dispersal of effluent is one of the most
important aspects related to the proper performance of OWTS. The ability of the soil
for providing adequate attenuation and removal of effluent contaminants is
dependent on several factors which need to be adequately assessed to ensure the soil
is capable of providing adequate treatment of effluent. Therefore, in order to ensure
that proper treatment and dispersal of effluent from OWTS occurs, it is imperative
that assessment of soil suitability for effluent renovation be conducted in a scientific
manner. To achieve this, a comprehensive understanding of the site and soil
characteristics that influence the effluent treatment process was obtained, with the
scientific principles and processes used in developing the criteria for assessing site
and soil suitability. This was the main focus of the scientific papers in Chapters 3-5.
The developed soil suitability framework provides a process for determining the
suitability of soil for providing appropriate renovation of effluent. Although the soils
investigated in developing the framework were restricted to Southeast Queensland,
the processes and techniques used for assessing soil suitability have been developed
on a generic basis.
335
The contamination of water resources as a result of poorly performing OWTS is a

widely recognised issue. However, research relating to the various factors that can
influence the fate and transport of contaminants through the environment have
generally been neglected. The movement of pollutants from OWTS into the
groundwater, and eventually surface water are reliant on a number of physical and
chemical processes which may either hinder or advance contaminant transport.
Investigations into the different factors and their influence on the transport of
contaminants were undertaken through this research (Chapter 6 and 7). It was found
that high densities of OWTS and their proximity to water resources greatly
influenced contaminant concentrations in ground and surface waters. However,
factors such as soil type and slope were also related to the respective level of
contaminants, although these were found to be more influential on contaminant fate.
Statistical analysis of collected water samples also indicated that the cumulative
effect of multiple investigated factors was more influential on the fate and transport
of pollutants within the environment than any singular factor. This is particularly
important for the management of environmental and public health risks, as these
factors need to be considered when implementing management strategies to mitigate
the respective risks.
Additionally, an investigation into the various techniques available for sourcing

nircoorganisms back to OWTS was undertaken. Through this research, antibiotic
resistance pattern (ARP) analysis was utilised to source track enumerated E. coli
isolates obtained from monitored water sources, to their host of origin (Chapter 8).
This research proved particularly useful in determining human from non-human
faecal contamination and subsequently allowed the identification of areas which
were highly sensitive to OWTS and indicated significant public health risk.
In order to overcome the inherent risks associated with the poor performance of
OWTS, a more universal and scientifically robust assessment and management
framework is necessary. The developed integrated risk framework (Chapter 9) is
specifically aimed at assessing and managing the inherent environmental and public
health risks associated with OWTS. As detailed through the case study for Gold
Coast region, detailed investigations have allowed the incorporation of scientific
information into the assessment of OWTS siting and design and environmental and
336
public health risks. This information, along with the resulting risks, was developed
into a GIS database to allow spatial identification of at risk areas. This allowed more
appropriate management protocols to be implemented aimed specifically at
mitigating the inherent environmental and public health risks associated with poor
OWTS performance within the identified at risk areas.
12.2 Recommendations
Although the developed integrated risk framework has helped to strengthen the
current standards and codes, there still remain two critical areas that have not been
addressed through this research. Therefore, further research towards these areas is
recommended to increase the effectiveness of the developed risk framework. These
include:
Assessment and implementation of appropriate setback distances based on site

specific investigations rather than applying generalised setbacks for all scenarios.
As described throughout the current research, assessment of site suitability is
dependent on a number of soil and site related characteristics which can
substantially differ from one location to the next. As such, setback distances need
to be investigated based on these specific site characteristics rather than adopting
standardised distances for all site conditions.
Additionally, current setback distances focus specifically on public health issues.

Although this is a critical factor, some areas may be more prone to environmental
impacts. The resulting adverse impacts due to the transport of nutrients can be far
in excess to that of public health impacts. Therefore, an investigation into the
development of setback distances based on environmental issues also needs to be
addressed.
Density is an important issue relating to the management of OWTS. Increased

densities of OWTS are well recognised for increasing the potential for
contamination of water resources, particularly groundwater. Additionally, from
the research undertaken, it was found that high OWTS densities on suitable soil
337
did not impact on water resources to the extent as that for unsuitable soil. As
such, the acceptable density of OWTS will differ depending on the respective soil
and site characteristics. However, there currently exists no scientifically
defensible information that details what density of OWTS can be adopted based
on soil conditions, without causing detrimental impacts on water resources.
338
CHAPTER 13.0
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Ackerman, D., and Weisberg, S.B. 2003. Relationship between rainfall and
beach bacterial concentrations on Santa Monica bay beaches. Journal of
Water and Health 1: 85-89.
2. Adams, M.J. 1995. Chemometrics in Analytical spectroscopy. Springer
Verlag, New York.
3. Allee, D.J., Raymond, L.S., Skaley, J.E., and Wilcox, D.E. 2001. A guide to
the public management of private septic systems. In. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
Local Government Program, A US Economic Development Administration
University Center and Affiliate of the Community and Rural Development
Institute, Department of Applied Economics and Management, New York
State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University.
4. Allison, L.E. 1947. Effect of microorganisms on permeability of soil under
prolonged submergence. Soil Science 63: 439-450.
5. Alm, E.W., Burke, J., and Spain, A. 2003. Fecal indicator bacteria are
abundant in wet sand at freshwater beaches. Water Research 37(16): 3978-
3982.
6. ANZECC 2000. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine
water quality, volume 1, the guidelines (chapters 1-7). Canberra: Australian
and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New
Zealand (ARMCANZ).
7. Arnade, L.J. 1999. Seasonal correlation of well contamination and septic tank
distance. Ground Water 37(6): 920-923.
8. AS/NZS 1547 2000. AS/NZS 1547:2000: Onsite domestic-wastewater
management. In. Strathfield: Standards Australia/New Zealand.
9. AS/NZS 4360 1999. AS/NZS 4360:1999 - risk management. In. Sydney and
Wellington: Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand.
339
Chapter 13.0 References
10. Asante-Duah, D.K. 1998. Risk assessment in environmental management: A

guide for managing chemical contamination problems. John Wiley,
Chichester England.
11. Ashbolt, N.J. 2004. Risk analysis of drinking water microbial contamination
versus disinfection by-products (DBPS). Toxicology 198: 255262.
12. Avery, A.A. 1999. Infantile methemoglobinemia: Re-examining the role of
drinking water nitrates. Environmental Health Perspectives 107(7): 583-586.
13. Bailey, J., and Wallman, H. 1971. A survey of household waste treatment
systems. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 43(12): 2349-2360.
14. Balkau, F., and Evans, B.J. 1981. Wastewater irrigation - some recent
concerns. In Proceedings of the Ninth Federal Convention of the Australian
Water and Wastewater Association. Perth, pp. 20-21 - 20-24.
15. Beavers, P., Tully, I., and Woolley, A. 1999. Performance evaluation of on-
site aerated wastewater treatment systems. In Proceedings of On-Site '99
Conference: Making Onsite Wastewater Systems Work. Patterson, R.A. (ed).
Armidale: Landfax Laboratories, pp. 45-52.
16. Beavers, P.D. 1999. Onsite sewerage facilities - what is expected of new
regulations. In Proceedings of On-Site '99 Conference: Making Onsite
Wastewater Systems Work. Patterson, R.A. (ed). Armidale: Landfax
Laboratories, pp. 39-44.
17. Beavers, P.D., and Gardner, E.A. 1993. Prediction of virus transport through
soils. In Technical Papers of the 15th Federal Convention, Australian Water
and Wastewater Association. Gold Coast, Australia, pp. 530-535.
18. Bishop, P.L., and Logsdon, H.S. 1981. Rejuvenation of failed soil absorption
systems. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division 107(EE1): 47-
55.
19. Booth, A.M., Hagedorn, C., Graves, A.K., Hagedorn, S.C., and Mentz, K.H.
2003. Sources of fecal pollution in Virginia's Blackwater river. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 129(6): 547-552.
20. Borchardt, M.A., Bertz, P.D., Spencer, S.K., and Battigelli, D.A. 2003.
Incidence of enteric viruses in groundwater from household wells in
Wisconsin. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69(2): 1172-1180.
340
21. Borden, D., and Giese, R.F. 2001. Baseline studies of the clay minerals
society source clays: cation exchange capacity measurements by the
ammonia-electrode method. Clays and Clay Minerals 49(5): 444-445.
22. Bouma, J. 1974. Innovative on-site soil disposal and treatment systems for
septic tank effluent. In Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal
Symposium. Chicago: ASAE, pp. 152-162.
23. Bouma, J., Ziebell, W.A., Walker, W.G., Olcott, P.G., McCoy, E., and Hole,
F.D. 1972. Soil absorption of septic tank effluent: A field study of some
major soils in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and
Natural History Survey, Department of Soil Science and Bacteriology,
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
24. Bounds, T.R. 1997. Design and performance of septic tanks. In Proceedings
of the Symposium: Site Characterisation and Design of On-Site Septic
Systems. Bedinger, M.S., Fleming, J.S., and Johnson, A.I. (eds). New
Orleans: ASTM, pp. 217-234.
25. Bouwer, H., and Idelovitch, E. 1987. Quality requirements for irrigation with
sewage water. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 113(4): 516-
535.
26. Brereton, R.G. (1990) Chemometrics: Applications of mathematics and
statistics to laboratory systems. Ellis Horwood, New York.
27. Brewer, W.S., Lucus, J., and Prascak, G. 1978. An evaluation of the
performance of household aerobic treatment systems. Journal of
Environmental Health 41(2): 82-85.
28. Bridges, J. 2003. Human health and environmental risk assessment: The need
for a more harmonised and integrated approach. Chemosphere 52: 1347
1351.
29. Brouwer, J., and Bugeja, R.M. 1983. Land capability for septic tank effluent
absorption fields. Australian Water Resources Council Technical Paper(80).
30. Brown and Root Services 2001. On-site sewage risk assessment system. In.
NSW: NSW Department of Local Government.
31. Buchanan, R.L., Smith, J.L., and Long, W. 2000. Microbial risk assessment:
Dose-response relations and risk characterization. International Journal of
Food Microbiology 58: 159172.
341
32. Burgman, M. 2001. Flaws in subjective assessments of ecological risks and

means for correcting them. Australian Journal of Environmental
Management 8(4): 219-226.
33. Butler, D., and Payne, J. 1995. Septic tanks: Problems and practice. Building
and Environment 30(3): 419-425.
34. Caldwell Connell Engineers 1986. On-site wastewater disposal systems -
final report. In. Perth: Water Authority of Western Australia.
35. Canter, L.W., and Knox, R.C. 1991. Septic tank system effects on ground
water quality. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc.
36. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A., and Dawes, L. 2004. Framework for soil
suitability evaluation for sewage effluent renovation. Environmental Geology
46(2): 195-208.
37. Carroll, S.P., and Goonetilleke, A. 2004. Assessment of high density of onsite
wastewater treatment systems on a shallow groundwater aquifer.
Environmetrics 99: 257-274
38. CENR 1999. Ecological risk assessment in the federal government.
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science
and Technology Council. Washington, D.C.
39. Charles, K., Ashbolt, N., Roser, D., Deere, D., and McGuinness, R. 2001.
On-site sewage management, AS/NZS 1547 and the Sydney catchments. In
Proceedings of On-Site '01 Conference: Advancing On-Site Wastewater
Systems. Patterson, R.A., and Jones, M.J. (eds). Armidale: Lanfax
40. Chen, C.W., Weintraub, L.H.Z., Goldstein, R.A., Siegrist, R.L., and Kirkland,
S. 2001. Framework to account for onsite wastewater systems in calculating
total maximum daily loads. In On-Site Wastewater Treatment. Proceedings of
the Ninth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Systems. Mancl, K. (ed). Fort Worth, Texas.: ASAE, pp. 523-531.
41. Chin, D.A., and Chittaluru, P.V.K. 1994. Risk management in wellhead
protection. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 120(3):
294-315.
42. Cliver, D.O. 2000. Research needs in decentralised wastewater treatment and
management: Fate and transport of pathogens. In Proceedings of the National
342
Research Needs Conference: Risk-Based Decision Making for On-Site

Wastewater Treatment. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.
43. Comly, H.H. 1945. Cyanosis in infants caused by nitrates in well-water.
Journal of the American Medical Association 129:112-116.
44. Converse, J.C., and Tyler, E.J. 1984. Wisconsin mounds for very difficult
sites. In Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Systems. New Orleans: ASAE, pp. 119-130.
45. Converse, J.C., and Tyler, E.J. 1987. Onsite wastewater treatment using
Wisconsin mounds on difficult sites. Transactions of the ASAE 30: 362-368.
46. Converse, J.C., and Tyler, E.J. 1998. Soil treatment of aerobically treated
domestic wastewater with emphasis on modified mounds. In Proceedings of
the Eighth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Systems, pp.306-319
47. Corbett, D.R., Dillon, K., Burnett, W., and Schaefer, G. 2002. The spatial
variability of nitrogen and phosphorus concentration in a sand aquifer
influenced by onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems: A case study on
St. George Island, Florida. Environmental Pollution 117: 337-345.
48. Covello, V.T., and Merkhofer, M.W. 1994. Risk assessment methods:
Approaches for assessing health and environmental risks. Plenum Press, New
York.
49. Cromer, W.C. 1999. Trenchtm 3.0 - a computer application for site
assessment and system sizing. In On-site '99: Proceedings of On-site '99
Conference: Making on-site wastewater systems work. Patterson, R. (ed).
University of New England, Armidale, NSW: Lanfax Laboratories, pp. 85-
88.
50. Cromer, W.C. 2001. Treating domestic wastewater in a shallow coastal sand
aquifer near Hobart. In Proceedings of On-Site '01 Conference: Advancing
On-Site Wastewater Systems. Patterson, R.A., and Jones, M.J. (eds).
Armidale: Lanfax Laboratories, pp. 113-120.
51. Daniel, T.C., and Bouma, J. 1974. Column studies of soil clogging in a
slowly permeable soil as a function of effluent quality. Journal of
Environmental Quality 3(4): 321-326.
343
52. Dawes, L., and Goonetilleke, A. 2003. An investigation into the role of site
and soil characteristics in onsite sewage treatment. Environmental Geology
44(4): 467-477.
53. DeBorde, D.C., Woessner, W.W., Lauerman, B., and Ball, P.N. 1998. Virus
occurrence and transport in a school septic system and unconfined aquifer.
Ground Water 36(5): 825-834.
54. Diack, M., and Stott, D.E. 2001. Development of a soil quality index for the
Chalmers silty clay loam from Midwest USA. In 10th International Soil
Conservation Organisation Meeting. Stott, D.E., Mohtar, R.H., and
Steinhardt, G.C. (eds). Purdue University: USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion
Research Laboratory. pp. 550-555.
55. Dix, S.P., and May, R. 1997. A review of the performance of chamber
leaching systems. In Proceedings of the Symposium: Site Characterization
and Design of On-Site Septic Systems. Bedinger, M.S., Fleming, J.S., and
Johnson, A.I. (eds). New Orleans: ASTM. pp. 248-260.
56. DNRM 2002. On-site sewerage code. Department of Natural Resources and
Mines, Brisbane, Australia.
57. Dombeck, P.E., Jonhnson, L.K., Zimmerley, S.T., and Sadowsky, M.J. 2000.
Use of repetitive DNA sequences and the PCR to differentiate Escherichia
coli from human and animal sources. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 66: 2572-2577.
58. Eliasson, J.M., Lenning, D.A., and Wecker, S.C. 2001. Critical point
monitoring - a new framework for monitoring on-site wastewater systems. In
Proceedings of the Ninth National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems. Mancl, K. (ed). Fort Worth, Texas: ASAE, pp.
461-469.
59. Ellis, B.G. 1973. The soil as a chemical filter. In Recycling treated municipal
wastewater and sludge through forest and cropland. Sopper, W.E., and
Kardos, L.T. (eds). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
60. EPRI 2001. National research needs conference proceedings: Risk-based
decision making for onsite wastewater treatment. Electric power research
institute. Palo Alto, CA, U.S.: Environmental Protection Agency and
National Decentralised Water Resources Capacity Development Project.
344
61. Fan, A.M., Willhite, C.C., and Book, S.A. 1987. Evaluation of the nitrate
drinking water standard with reference to infant methemoglobinemia and
potential reproductive toxicology. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
7(2): 135-148.
62. Fedra, K. 1998. Integrated risk assessment and management, overview and
state of the art. Journal of Hazardous Material 6: 15-22.
63. Fewtrell, L. 2004. Drinking-water nitrate, methemoglobinemia, and global
burden of disease: A discussion. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:
13711374.
64. Fleisher, J.M., Kay, D., Wyer, M.D., and Godfree, A.F. 1998. Estimates of
the severity of illness associated with bathing in marine recreational waters
contaminated with domestic sewage. International Journal of Epidemiology
27: 722-726.
65. Fulhage, C.D., and Pfrost, D.L. (1997). Sewage treatment plants for rural
homes. URL http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/envqual/wq0403.htm
66. Ganoulis, J. 1994. Engineering risk analysis of water pollution: Probabilities
and fuzzy sets. VCH Publishers, New York.
67. Geary, P.M. 1987. On-site domestic wastewater disposal: Options for the
mount lofty ranges watershed. Engineering and Water Supply Department,
Adelaide, South Australia.
68. Geary, P.M. 1992. Diffuse pollution from wastewater disposal in small
unsewered communities. Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
5(1): 28-33.
69. Geary, P.M. 1993. Evaluation of on-site disposal options. Water Science and
Technology 27(1): 59-62.
70. Geary, P.M., Robertson, G., and Whitehead, J.H. 1999. Onsite systems and
catchment management. In Proceedings of On-Site '99 Conference: Making
Onsite Wastewater Systems Work. Patterson, R.A. (ed). Armidale: Landfax
71. Geary, P.M., and Whitehead, J.H. 2001. Groundwater contamination from
on-site domestic wastewater management systems in a coastal catchment. In
On-site Wastewater Treatment: Proceedings of the Ninth National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. Mancl, K.
(ed). Fort Worth, Texas: ASAE, pp. 479-487.
345
72. Gibson, C.J., Haas, C.N., and Rose, J.B. 1998. Risk assessment of waterborne
protozoa: Current status and future trends. Parasitology 117(Supplement):
S205-S212.
73. Gold, A.J., and Sims, J.T. 2000. Research needs in decentralized wastewater
treatment and management: A risk-based approach to nutrient contamination.
In National Research Needs Conference Proceedings: Risk-Based Decision
Making for Onsite Wastewater Treatment. St Louis, Missouri.
74. Goonetilleke, A., and Dawes, L. 2001. Audit of septic tank performance. In
Proceedings of On-Site '01 Conference: Advancing On-Site Wastewater
Systems. Patterson, R.A., and Jones, M.J. (eds). Armidale: Landfax
75. Goonetilleke, A., Dawes, L., and Biddel, D. 2002. Performance evaluation of
septic tanks in the gold coast region. Environmental Studies, Gold Coast City
Council Research Unit, Volume 8. Gold Coast, Australia.
76. Goonetilleke, A., Dawes, L., and Rigden, B. 2000a. Brisbane city council -
performance evaluation of onsite sewage treatment: Field sampling and
preliminary evaluation of results. Physical Infrastructure Centre, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane.
77. Goonetilleke, A., Dawes, L., and Stuart, D. 2000b. Logan city council - audit
of septic tank performance for the development of management strategies:
Final report. Physical Infrastructure Centre, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane.
78. Goonetilleke, A., Rigden, B., and Dawes, L. 1999. Performance evaluation of
onsite sewage treatment - evaluation of current research. Physical
Infrastructure Centre, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
79. Gough, J. 2001. The development of the Australian and New Zealand risk
management standard and environmental guidelines. Australian Journal of
Environmental Management 8(4): 203-210.
80. Gunn, I.W. 1988. Septic tank systems - state of the art, 1988. In Alternative
waste treatment systems. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., pp. 2-
13.
81. Gupta, A.K., Suresh, I.V., Misra, J., and Yunus, M. 2002. Environmental risk
mapping approach: Risk minimisation tool for development of industrial
346
growth centres in developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 10:

271-281.
82. Gustafson, D.M., Anderson, J.L., and Christopherson, S.H. 2001. Innovative
onsite sewage treatment systems: Aerobic treatment unit. University of
Minnesota - Extension Service and College of Agricultural, Food and
Environmental Sciences, St. Paul, Minnesota.
83. Hagedorn, C., McCoy, E.L., and Rahe, T.M. 1981. The potential for ground
water contamination from septic tanks. Journal of Environmental Quality
10(1): 1-8.
84. Hagedorn, S.C., Robinson, S.L., Filtz, J.R., Grubbs, S.M., Angier, T.A., and
Reneau Jr, R.B. 1999. Determining sources of fecal pollution in a rural
Virginia watershed with antibiotic resistance patterns in fecal streptococci.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65(12): 5522-5531.
85. Hager, M.C. 2001. Detecting bacteria in coastal waters: Part 1. The Journal
for Surface Water Quality Professionals 2(3): 16-25.
86. Hanna, K.M., Kellam, J.L., and Boardman, G.D. 1995. Onsite aerobic
package treatment systems. Water Research 29(11): 2530-2540.
87. Harman, J., Robertson, W.D., Cherry, J.A., and Zanini, L. 1996. Impacts on a
sand aquifer from an old septic system: Nitrate and phosphate. Ground Water
34(6): 1105-1114.
88. Harris, P.J. 1995. Water quality impacts from on-site waste disposal systems
to coastal areas through groundwater discharge. Environmental Geology
26(4): 262-268.
89. Harvey, R.W., Kinner, N.E., Bunn, A., MacDonald, D., and Metge, D. 1995a.
Transport behaviour of groundwater protozoa and protozoan-sized
microspheres in sandy aquifer sediments. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 61(1): 209-217.
90. Harwood, V.J., Whitlock, J., and Withington, V. 2000. Classification of
antibiotic resistance patterns of indicator bacteria by discriminant analysis:
Use in predicting the source of fecal contamination in subtropical waters.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66(9): 3698-3704.
91. HB 203 2000. Hb 203:2000: Environmental risk management - principles and
process. In. Sydney: Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand.
347
92. Healy, K.A., and Laak, R. 1974. Site evaluation and design of seepage fields.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division 100(EE5): 1133-1147.
93. Hesketh, N., and Brookes, P.C. 2000. Development of an indicator for risk of
phosphorus leaching. Journal of Environmental Quality 29(1): 105-110.
94. Hodges, N. 2001. Maintenance and approval of on-site sewage treatment
systems. In Proceedings of On-Site '01 Conference: Advancing On-Site
Wastewater Systems. Patterson, R.A., and Jones, M.J. (eds). Armidale:
Landfax Laboratories, pp. 185-192.
95. Hoover, M.T., Arenovski, A., Daly, D., and Lindbo, D. 1998. A risk-based
approach to on-site system siting, design and management. In Proceedings of
the Eighth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Systems, pp. 66-78.
96. Hope, B.K., and Peterson, J.A. 2000. A procedure for performing population-
level ecological risk assessments. Environmental Management 25(3): 281-
289.
97. Hoxley, G., and Dudding, M. 1994. Groundwater contamination by septic
tank effluent: Two case studies in Victoria, Australia. In Water Down Under
'94: Proceedings of 25th Congress of International Association of
Hydrogeologists. Adelaide, Australia, pp. 145-152.
98. Isbell, R.F. 2002. The Australian soil classification. Collingwood, Victoria,
Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
99. Jelliffe, P.A. 1995. A study of the performance of on-site treatment and
disposal systems in Maroochy shire. Maroochy Shire Council, Maroochy,
Australia.
100. Jin, Y., Pratt, E., and Yates, M.V. 2000. Effects of mineral colloids on virus
transport through saturated sand columns. Journal of Environmental Quality
29(2): 532-539.
101. Jones, D.S., Armstrong, A.Q., and Muhlheim, M.D. 2000. Integrated risk
assessment/risk management as applied to decentralised wastewater
treatment: A high-level framework. In Proceedings of the National Research
Needs Conference: Risk-Based Decision Making for On-Site Wastewater
Treatment. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.
102. Jones, J.H., and Taylor, G.S. 1965. Septic tank effluent percolation through
sands under laboratory conditions. Soil Science 99:301-309.
348
103. Joubert, L., Kellogg, D.Q., and Gold, A.J. 1996. Watershed nonpoint
assessment and nutrient loading using the geographical information system-
based manage. In Proceedings of Watershed '96 - A National Conference on
Watershed Management. Baltimore, MD: US EPA, pp. 84-86.
104. Keller, H.R., Massart, D.L. and Brands, J.P. 1991. Multicriteria decision
making: a case study. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 11:
175-189
105. Kelsey, H., Porter, D.E., Scott, G., Neet, M., and White, D. 2004. Using
geographic information systems and regression analysis to evaluate
relationships between land use and fecal coliform bacterial pollution. Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298(2): 197-209.
106. Kenway, S., Irvine, R., and Moorhead, R. 2001. The on-site sewage risk
assessment system. In Proceedings of On-Site '01 Conference: Advancing
On-Site Wastewater Systems. Patterson, R.A., and Jones, M.J. (eds).
Armidale: Landfax Laboratories, pp. 227-234.
107. Khalife, M.A., and Dharmappa, H.B. 1996. Aerated septic tank systems:
Field survey of performance. Water 23(5): 25-28.
108. Khalil, W.A.-S., Goonetilleke, A., Kokot, S., and Carroll, S. 2004. Use of
chemometric methods and mulitcriteria decision-making for site selection for
sustainable on-site sewage effluent disposal. Analytica Chimica Acta 506(1):
41-56.
109. Kirkland, S. 2001. Coupling site-scale fate and transport with watershed-scale
modelling of nutrients from onsite wastewater systems. Boulder, Denver,
Colorado: Colorado School of Mines.
110. Kleene, J.W., Mote, C.R., and Allison, J.S. 1993. Environmental impact of
irrigating lawns with treated domestic wastewater. Journal of Environmental
Health 55(5): 1-5.
111. Kokot, S., Grigg, M., Panayiotou, H. and Dong Phuong, T. 1998. Data
interpretation by some common chemometrics methods. Electroanalysis
10(16): 1081-1088
112. Kristiansen, R. 1981. Sand-filter trenches for purification of septic tank
effluent: I. The clogging mechanism and soil physical environment. Journal
of Environmental Quality 10(3): 353-357.
349
113. Lhirondel J, and Lhirondel, J.-L. 2002. Nitrate and man. Toxic, harmless or
beneficial? CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
114. Laak, R. 1970. Influence of domestic wastewater pretreatment on soil
clogging. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 42(8): 1495-1500.
115. Laak, R. 1986. Wastewater engineering design for unsewered areas.
Technomic Publishing Co. Inc, Pennsylvania.
116. Labienice, P.A., Dzombak, D.A., and Siegrist, R.L. 1997. Evaluation of
uncertainty in a site-specific risk assessment. Journal of Environmental
Engineering 123(2): 234-243.
117. Lam, K.C., Ng, S.L., and Neller, R.J. 1993. Fate of biological and chemical
contaminants from on-site disposal of liquid piggery wastes: Results from a
soil column study. Water Science and Technology 27(1): 63-75.
118. Lawrence, A.R., Macdonald, D.M.J., Howard, A.G., Barrett, M.H., Pedley,
S., Ahmed, K.M., and Nalubega, M. 2001. Guidelines for assessing the risk to
groundwater from on-site sanitation. British Geological Survey and
Department for International Development Commissioned report CR/01/142.
119. Leeming, R., Bate, N., Hewlett, R., and Nichols, P.D. 1998. Discriminating
fecal pollution: A case study of stormwater entering Port Phillip Bay,
Australia. Water Science and Technology 38(10): 15-22.
120. Lipp, E.K., Farrah, S.A., and Rose, J.B. 2001. Assessment and impact of
microbial fecal pollution and human enteric pathogens in a coastal
community. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42(4): 286-293.
121. Logan, A.J., Stevik, T.K., Siegrist, R.L., and Ronn, R.M. 2001. Transport and
fate of cryptosporidium parvum in intermittent sand filters during wastewater
treatment. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Systems. Mancl, K. (ed). Forth Worth, Texas:
ASAE, pp. 137-146.
122. Loomis, G.W., Dow, D.B., Stolt, M.H., Sykes, A.D., and Gold, A.J. 2001.
Performance evaluation of innovative treatment technologies used to
remediate failed septic systems. In Proceedings of the Ninth National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. Mancl, K.
(ed). Fort Worth, Texas, pp. 52-61.
350
123. Magdoff, F.R., Bouma, J., and Keeney, D.R. 1974a. Columns representing
mound-type disposal systems for septic tank effluent: 1. Soil-water and gas
relations. Journal of Environmental Quality 3(3): 223-228.
124. Magdoff, F.R., Keeney, D.R., Bouma, J., and Ziebell, W.A. 1974b. Coulumns
representing mound-type disposal systems for septic tank effluent: II.
Nutrient transformations and bacterial populations. Journal of Environmental
Quality 3(3): 228-234.
125. Manahan, S.E. 2000. Environmental chemistry. Florida, USA: CRC Press
LLC.
126. Massart, D.L., Vandeginste, B.G.M., Deming, S.M., Michotte, Y. and
Kaufman, L. 1988, Chemometrics a text book. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
127. McGechan, M.B., and Lewis, D.R. 2002. SWsoil and water: Sorption of
phosphorus by soil, part 1: Principles, equations and models. Biosystems
Engineering 82(1): 1-24.
128. McGuinness, R.I., and Martens, D.M. 2003. GIS-based model to assess
potential risk of individual on-site effluent management systems -
development assessment module (dam). In Proceedings of On-site '03
Conference: Future directions for on-site systems-Best management practice.
Patterson, R.A.J. (ed). University of New England, Armidale, NSW: Lanfax
129. McLaughlin, J.A., and Jordan, G.B. 1999. Logic models: A tool for telling
your programs performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning 22: 65-
72.
130. Meays, C.L., Broersma, K., Nordin, R., and Mazumder, A. 2004. Source
tracking fecal bacteria in water: A critical review of current methods. Journal
of Environmental Management 73(1): 71-79.
131. Miller, F.P., and Wolf, D.C. 1975. Renovation of sewage effluents by the
soil. In Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Individual Onsite
Wastewater Systems. McClelland, N.I. (ed). National Sanitation Foundation
and US Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Program:
Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc, pp. 89-117.
132. Moona, H., Chena, J.J., Gaylorb, D.W., and Kodella, R.L. 2004. A
comparison of microbial doseresponse models fitted to human data.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 40: 177184.
351
133. Muirhead, R.W., Davies-Colley, R.J., Donnison, A.M., and Nagels, J.W.
2004. Faecal bacteria yields in artificial flood events: Quantifying in-stream
stores. Water Research 38(5): 1215-1224.
134. NH&MRC 1996. Australian drinking water guidelines. National Health and
Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australia.
135. Nichols, D.J., Wolf, D.C., Gross, M.A., and Rutledge, E.M. 1997.
Renovation of septic tank effluent in a stratified sand filter. In Proceedings of
the Symposium: Site Characterisation and Design of On-Site Septic Systems.
Bedinger, M.S., Fleming, J.S., and Johnson, A.I. (eds). New Orleans: ASTM,
pp. 235-247.
136. Nicosia, L.A., Rose, J.B., and Stewart, M.T. 2001. A field study of virus
removal in septic tank drain fields. Journal of Environmental Quality 30(6):
1933-1939.
137. Noble, K.E. 1996. Understanding and managing soils in the Moreton Region.
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, Australia.
138. Noss, R.R., and Billa, M. 1988. Septic system maintenance management.
Journal of Urban Planning and Development 114(2): 73-90.
139. O'Keefe, N. 2001. Accreditation of on-site wastewater treatment systems -
installation and maintenance personnel. In Proceedings of On-Site '01
Conference: Advancing On-Site Wastewater Systems. Patterson, R.A., and
Jones, M.J. (eds). Armidale: Lanfax Laboratories, pp. 295-299.
140. Otis, R.J. 1984. Soil clogging: Mechanisms and control. In Proceedings of
the Fourth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Systems. New Orleans: ASAE, pp. 239-250.
141. Otis, R.J., Hutzler, N.J., and Boyle, W.C. 1974. On-site household
wastewater treatment alternatives: Laboratory and field studies. Water
Research 8: 1099-1113.
142. Pang, L., Close, M., Goltz, M., Sinton, L., Davies, H., Hall, C., and Stanton,
G. 2003. Estimation of setback distances based on transport of e. Coli and f-
rna phages. Environment International 29: 907-921.
143. Parker, W.F., and Carbon, B.A. 1981. A column study of the movement of
enteric bacteria through two sand soils of the swan coastal plain, Western
Australia. In Technical Papers: Ninth Federal Convention of the Australian
Water and Wastewater Association. Perth: AWWA, pp. 26-21-26-24.
352
144. Parveen, S., Portier, K.M., Robinson, K., Edminston, L., and Tamplin, M.L.
1999. Discriminant analysis of ribotype profiles of Escherichia coli for
differentiating human and nonhuman sources of fecal pollution. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 65(7): 3142-3117.
145. Patterson, R.A. 2003. Nitrogen in wastewater and its role in constraining on-
site planning. In Proceedings of On-site 03 Conference: Future Directions
for On-site Systems. Patterson, R.A., and Jones, M.J. (eds). Armidale, NSW:
Published by Lanfax Laboratories.
146. Paul, J.H., McLaughlin, M.R., Griffin, D.W., Lipp, E.K., Stokes, R., and
Rose, J.B. 2000. Rapid movement of wastewater from on-site disposal
systems into surface waters in the lower Florida Keys. Estuaries 23(5): 662-
668.
147. Paul, J.H., Rose, J.B., Jiang, S.C., Zhou, X., Cochran, P., Kellogg, C., Kang,
J.B., Griffin, D., Farrah, S.A., and Lukasik, J. 1997. Evidence for
groundwater and surface marine water contamination by waste disposal wells
in the Florida Keys. Water Research 31(6): 1448-1454.
148. Perkins, R.J. 1984. Septic tank, lot size and pollution of water table aquifers.
Journal of Environmental Health 46(6): 298-304.
149. Powelson, D.K., and Gerba, C.P. 1994. Virus removal from sewage effluents
during saturated and unsaturated flow through soil columns. Water Research
28(10): 2175-2181.
150. Rahe, T.M., Hagedorn, C., McCoy, E.L., and Kling, G.F. 1978. Transport of
antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coil through western Oregon hillslope soils
under conditions of saturated flow. Journal of Environmental Quality 7(4):
487-494.
151. Reneau Jr., R.B., Hagedorn, C., and Degen, M.J. 1989. Fate and transport of
biological and inorganic contaminants from on-site disposal of domestic
water. Journal of Environmental Quality 18(2): 135-144.
152. Robertson, W.D., Cherry, J.A., and Sudicky, E.A. 1991. Ground-water
contamination from two small septic systems on sand aquifers. Ground Water
29(1): 82-92.
153. Robertson, W.D., Schiff, S.L., and Ptacek, C.J. 1998. Review of phosphate
mobility and persistence in 10 septic system plumes. Ground Water 36(6):
1000-1010.
353
154. Rubin, A.R., and Carlile, B.L. 1991. Slow rate spray irrigation treatment
facilities for individual homes. In Proceedings of the Sixth National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. Chicago:
ASAE, pp. 371-375.
155. Ryan 1999. Ryan versus great lakes council. Federal Court of Australia, 177.
156. Scandura, J.E., and Sobsey, M.D. 1997. Viral and bacterial contamination of
groundwater from on-site sewage treatment systems. Water Science and
Technology 35(11-12): 141-146.
157. Scherer, B.P. 1982. Onsite household wastewater treatment for disposal by
lawn sprinkling. University of Arkansas, Arkansas.
158. Sewards, D.G.J., and Fimmel, R.J. 1983. On-site wastewater disposal in
Perth. In Proceedings of the Tenth Federal Convention of the Australian
Water and Wastewater Association. Sydney, pp. 55-51 - 55-12.
159. Siegrist, R.L., and Jenssen, P.D. 1989. N removal efficiency during
wastewater infiltration as affected by design and environmental factors. In
Proceedings of the Sixth Northwest On-site Wastewater Treatment Short
Course. Seabloom, R.W., and Lenning, D.A. (eds). University of
Washington, pp. 304-318.
160. Siegrist, R.L., Tyler, E.J., and Jenssen, P.D. 2000. Design and performance of
onsite wastewater treatment soil adsorption systems. In Proceedings of the
National Research Needs Conference: Risk-Based Decision Making for On-
Site Wastewater Treatment. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, pp. 1-48.
161. Siegrist, R.L. 2001. Advancing the science and engineering of onsite
wastewater systems. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Symposium on
Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. Mancl, K. (ed). St Joseph,
MI: ASAE, pp. 1-10.
162. Siegrist, R.L., and Van Cuyk, S. 2001. Wastewater soil absorption systems:
The performance effects of process and environmental conditions. In
Proceedings of the Ninth National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems. Mancl, K. (ed). Fort Worth, Texas: ASAE, pp.
41-51.
163. Sim, Y., and Chrysikopoulos, C.V. 2000. Virus transport in unsaturated
porous media. Water Resources Research 36(1): 173-179.
354
164. Sinton, L.W. 1986. Microbial contamination of alluvial gravel aquifers by

septic tank effluent. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 28: 407-425.
165. Solomon, K.R., and Sibley, P. 2001. New concepts in ecological risk
assessment: Where do we go from here? Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(4):
279-285
166. Stace, H.C.T., Hubble, G.D., Brewer, R., Northcote, K.H., Sleeman, J.R.,
Mulcahy, M.J., and Hallsworth, E.G. 1968. A handbook of Australian soils.
Rellim Technical Publications, Glenside, South Australia.
167. Stevik, T.K., Ausland, G., Jenssen, P.D., and Siegrist, R.L. 1999. Removal of
E. coli during intermittent filtration of wastewater effluent as affected by
dosing rate and media type. Water Research 33(9): 2088-2098.
168. Thurston, J.A., Gerb, C.P., Foster, K.E., and Karpiscak, M.M. 2001. Fate of
indicator microorganisms, giardia and cryptosporidium in subsurface flow
wetlands. Water Research 31(6): 1547-1551.
169. Tynkkynen, S., Satokari, R., Saarela, M., Mattila-Sandholm, T., and Saxelin,
M. 1999. Comparison of ribotyping, randomly amplified polymorphic DNA
analysis, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis in typing of lactobacillus
rhamnosus and l. Casei strains. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
65(9): 39083914.
170. US EPA 1980. Design manual: Onsite wastewater treatment and disposal
systems. US Environmental Protection Agency.
171. US EPA 1981. Process design manual: Land treatment of municipal
wastewater. US Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA 625/1-
81-013.
172. US EPA 1996. National water quality inventory report to congress: 305(b)
report. US Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Water,
Washington, DC:.
173. US EPA 1997. Guidance for cumulative risk assessment: Part 1 planning and
scoping. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC,
USA.
174. US EPA 2002. Onsite wastewater treatment systems manual. Office of Water,
Office of Research and Development and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA/625/R-00/008
355
175. Van Cuyk, S., Siegrist, R., Logan, A., Masson, S., Fischer, E., and Figueroa,
L. 2001. Hydraulic and purification behaviours and their interactions during
wastewater treatment in soil infiltration systems. Water Research 35(4): 953-
964.
176. Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., and Jetten, M.S.M. 1998. Microbiological
conversions in nitrogen removal. Water Science and Technology 38(1): 1-7.
177. Visual Decision Inc. 1999. Decision Lab 2000 Executative Edition, Visual
Decision In, Montreal, Quebec, Cananda.
178. Viraraghavan, T. 1978. Travel of microorganisms from a septic tile. Water,
Air and Soil Pollution 9:355-362.
179. Wellings, F.M., Lewis, A.L., and Mountain, C.W. 1974. The fate of virus in
Florida soils following secondary effluent spray irrigation. In Proceedings of
the First National Conference on Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems.
McClelland, N.I. (ed): Ann Arbor Science Publishers Incorporated, pp. 121-
126.
180. Wells, M. 2001. Assessment of land capability for on-site septic tank effluent
disposal. Resource Management Technical Report No.63. Department of
Agriculture, Western Australia.
181. Whitehead, J.H., and Geary, P.M. 2000. Geotechnical aspects of domestic on-
site effluent management systems. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 47:
75-82.
182. Whitlock, J.E., Jones, D.T., and Harwood, V.J. 2002. Identification of the
sources of fecal coliforms in an urban watershed using antibiotic resistance
analysis. Water Research 36(17): 4273-4282.
183. Wiggins, B.A. 1996. Discriminant analysis of antibiotic resistance patterns in
fecal streptococci, a method to differentiate human and animal sources of
fecal pollution in natural waters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
62(11): 3997-4002.
184. Wiggins, B.A., Andrews, R.W., Conway, R.A., Corr, C.L., Dobratz, E.J.,
Dougherty, D.P., Eppard, J.R., Knupp, S.R., Limjoco, M.C., Mettenburg,
J.M., Rinehardt, J.M., Sonsino, J., Torrijos, R.L., and Zimmerman, M.E.
1999. Use of antibiotic resistance analysis to identify nonpoint sources of
fecal pollution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65(8): 3483-3486.
356
185. Wiggins, B.A., Cash, P.W., Creamer, W.S., Dart, S.E., Garcia, P.P., Gerecke,
T.M., Han, J., Henry, B.L., Hoover, K.B., Johnson, E.L., Jones, K.C.,
McCarthy, J.G., McDonough, J.A., Mercer, S.A., Noto, M.J., Park, H.,
Philips, M.S., Purner, S.M., Smith, B.M., Stevens, E.N., and Varner, A.K
2003. Use of antibiotic resistance analysis for representativeness testing of
multiwatershed libraries. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 3399-3405.
186. Wilson, D.I. 2002. Derivation of the chalk superficial depositsof the North
Downs, England: an application of discriminant analysis. Geomorphology
42(3-4): 343-364
187. Yates, M.V. 1985. Septic tank density and ground-water contamination.
Ground Water 31(6): 884-889.
188. Young, K.D., and Thackston, E.L. 1999. Housing density and bacterial
loading in urban streams. Journal of Environmental Engineering 125(12):
1177-1180.
357
Appendices
APPENDICIES
358
APPENDIX A
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH RISK

OF ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
S.P. Carroll1, A. Goonetilleke1, M. Hargreaves2
1
School of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane , Australia
2
School of Life Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane Australia
On-site Wastewater Treatment X: Proceedings of the Tenth National Symposium on

Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. ASAE, Sacramento, California,
USA. pp. 368-376

359
APPENDIX B
RISK ZONES DEVELOPED FOR GOLD COAST CITY
371
Appendix B
Risk Zones Developed for Gold Coast City
Figure B.1: Soil suitability for effluent renovation risk Figure B.2: Nitrogen risk classifications established for
classifications established for Gold Coast City. Gold Coast City.
372
Appendix B
Figure B.3: Phosphorus risk classifications established for Figure B.4: Cumulative soil and nutrient risk classifications for
Gold Coast City
Gold Coast City
373
Appendix B
Figure B.5: Planning scheme (lot size) risk classifications for Figure B.6: Slope risk classifications for Gold Coast City
Gold Coast City
374
Appendix B
Figure B.7: Setback distance risk classifications for Gold Coast City Figure B.8: Flooding risk classifications for Gold Coast City
375
Appendix B
Figure B.9: Environmental risk classifications for Gold Coast City Figure B.10: Public health risk classifications for Gold Coast City
376
Appendix B
Soil Renovation Soil Nitrogen Risk Soil Phosphorus Risk

Suitability Risk Classifications Classifications
Classifications
Arithmetic Overlay Reclassification of

using Boolean overlay into
operators cumulative risk zones
Cumulative risk for

Figure B.11a Public health risk classifications for Gold Coast City established soil and
nutrient risk zones
377
Appendix B
Planning Cumulative Soil & OWTS Siting &

Scheme Risk Nutrient Risk Design Risk
Arithmetic Reclassification of Assess at risk areas by

Overlay using overlay into reassessment of limiting
Boolean operators cumulative risk hazards
zones
Setback Risk Public Health

Zones Risk
Slope Risk Flood Risk Environmental

Risk
Figure B.11b Public health risk classifications for Gold Coast City
378
Appendix C
Water Quality Data from Monitored Sampling
Locations, Gold Coast City
379
Appendix C
Water Quality Data from Monitored Sampling Locations
Average (range) concentrations of water quality data from sample monitoring
locations
Table C.1: Water quality parameters analysed and notation

Parameter Notation Unit
Chemical Contaminants
Water Table Depth Water Table m
pH pH
Electrical Conductivity EC mS/cm
Chlorides Cl- mg/L
Nitrate NO3- mg/L
Total Nitrogen TN mg/L
Phosphate PO43- mg/L
Total Phosphorus TP mg/L
Total Carbon TC mg/L
Inorganic Carbon IC mg/L
Total Organic Carbon TOC mg/L
Microbiological Contaminants
Heterotrophic Plate Count HPC cfu/100mL
Total Coliforms Tot. Col. cfu/100mL
Feacal Coliforms FC cfu/100mL
380
Appendix C
Table C.2: Average (range) concentrations of chemical contaminants at sample monitoring locations
Water
Monitoring EC Cl- NO3 TN PO43+ TP TC IC TOC
Table pH
Location mS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
m
Cabbage Tree Point

CT1 1.33 5.64 0.541 108.9 48.75 51.52 3.89 3.67 35.62 19.37 16.25
(1.2-1.52) (5.42-5.97) (0.392-0.841) (69.9-202.3) (14.4-132.5) (19.7-108.7) (0.73-11.25) (0.47-6.89) (26.65-43.09) (10.99-31.69) (11.40-19.84)
CT2 0.91 4.75 1.972 413.3 21.01 27.06 5.58 5.38 23.83 14.77 9.06
(0.68-1.2) (4.60-4.93) (1.62-2.41) (292.3-624.0) (8.16-52.5) (10.3-40.5) (1.47-14.75) (1.16-11.99) (15.76-30.65) (5.89-22.72) (7.85-9.87)
CT3 0.46 6.02 1.305 281.8 19.55 24.91 6.24 6.79 46.11 40.70 5.41
(0.2-0.78) (5.82-6.24) (1.13-1.49) (218.3-434.5) (3.6-42.5) (14.7-37.0) (1.67-22.21) (1.24-16.55) (35.95-56.68) (28.48-54.1) (2.58-7.47)
CT4 1.28 4.75 0.582 89.5 17.38 28.08 2.79 3.55 10.90 9.45 1.45
(1.1-1.34) (4.35-5.09) (0.49-0.69) (47.5-161.5) (7.8-37.5) (16.6-50.7) (0.96-5.31) (1.20-8.32) (8.109-14.86) (4.47-14.29) (0.57-3.63)
CT5 0.28 5.76 28.570 5636.3 23.64 49.92 4.65 4.26 60.22 54.69 5.53
(0.05-0.57) (5.36-6.08) (18.1-32.9) (3327.1-9320.0) (7.2-41.7) (29.3-76.2) (0.20-22.00) (0.08-12.63) (39.06-88.03) (29.58-85.83) (2.20-9.48)
CT6 0.92 6.27 4.729 842.0 17.53 36.90 5.84 3.78 64.64 61.10 3.53
(0.76-1.15) (6.12-6.68) (2.07-7.77) (450.1-1620.0) (3.0-42.5) (12.8-52.7) (0.67-31.23) (1.22-14.64) (20.68-88.69) (16.59-87.64) (0.56-6.62)
CT7 0.79 5.42 0.727 103.5 19.61 27.22 2.14 3.05 32.61 22.68 9.93
(0.63-1.2) (5.10-5.81) (0.47-1.15) (48.0-221.0) (4.8-42.5) (12.3-35.9) (1.05-2.95) (0.59-8.38) (21.61-43.42) (7.88-33.33) (1.23-20.70)
CT8 0.92 6.14 0.456 111.4 16.87 26.77 2.19 2.71 11.57 6.79 4.78
(0.53-1.51) (5.59-6.64) (0.34-0.64) (66.2-186.5) (7.2-32.5) (7.9-55.9) (1.21-4.07) (0.66-6.18) (8.153-16.33) (3.34-9.70) (2.47-9.10)
CTS1 7.19 50.336 13319.2 5.86 13.49 3.18 2.26 29.61 26.71 2.90
(6.09-8.20) (46.3-54.4) (5935.6-17844.2) (1.2-12.0) (4.2-20.5) (0.22-10.68) (0.48-4.83) (25.34-31.32) (21.78-29.31) (1.82-3.76)
CTS2 7.47 50.608 11957.4 6.92 13.20 3.54 2.28 30.61 29.68 0.93
(6.47-8.28) (46.2-54.8) (5257.9-17950.0) (1.26-11.52) (5.1-23.6) (0.00-19.77) (0.88-3.92) (26.55-33.97) (25.21-32.87) (0.26-1.34)
CTS3 7.21 41.530 8938.2 5.96 13.45 1.27 2.13 29.12 28.17 0.95
(6.56-7.74) (35.2-47.8) (3772.3-16170.0) (1.8-11.0) (7.8-26.6) (0.18-2.27) (0.20-5.96) (23.53-32.03) (20.35-31.57) (0.13-3.18)
381
Appendix C
Table C.2 (continued) Average (range) concentrations of chemical contaminants at sample monitoring locations
Monitoring Water
EC Cl- NO3 TN PO43+ TP TC IC TOC
Location Table pH
mS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
m
Jacobs Well
JW1 0.85 6.01 0.235 67.4 44.58 44.38 6.35 3.73 37.29 10.59 26.70
(0.42-1.16) (5.17-6.92) (0.105-0.592) (24.3-227.8) (9.0-142.5) (13.1-67.9) (1.18-19.75) (1.42-8.15) (23.8-71.52) (5.23-18.28) (12.06-53.24)
JW2 0.62 5.95 0.179 45.0 42.73 38.13 6.81 3.90 14.94 7.99 6.95
(0.38-0.81) (5.29-6.59) (0.138-0.214) (18.2-102.5) (4.2-130.0) (10.8-104.1) (1.25-21.25) (2.15-9.55) (9.00-21.27) (1.743-10.43) (3.13-11.16)
JW3 0.26 5.96 0.823 245.9 112.15 95.68 3.39 5.81 31.88 18.89 12.99
(0.00-0.49) (5.35-6.33) (0.139-1.22) (86.5-578.3) (34.2-220.0) (36.2-229.0) (1.08-5.85) (0.47-14.06) (22.65-38.3) (11.18-24.2) (11.47-14.52)
JW4 1.39 5.55 0.378 133.1 38.33 40.07 4.78 5.18 77.81 21.63 56.17
(1.23-1.60) (4.97-6.01) (0.148-1.05) (47.3-624.0) (3.6-97.5) (13.6-75.8) (1.4-14.22) (1.91-7.82) (33.28-168.6) (5.42-43.43) (26.33-
125.17)
JW5 2.41 5.41 0.207 54.7 14.36 24.88 4.33 5.26 25.09 13.06 12.03
(2.20-2.97) (4.79-6.19) (0.160-0.350) (32.8-85.3) (1.8-30.0) (12.2-36.8) (1.4-14.97) (2.03-9.98) (16.98-31.99) (3.70-22.22) (9.77-13.27)
JW6 1.73 6.74 0.422 17.7 15.04 22.79 3.90 5.24 54.01 52.37 1.64
(1.59-1.85) (6.17-7.35) (0.388-0.485) (7.5-40.0) (6.24-25) (13.1-35.6) (0.23-10.15) (1.46-12.98) (45.29-60.74) (42.49-59.22) (0.52-2.80)
JW7 1.40 3.90 0.144 43.1 46.99 50.41 8.92 7.67 86.91 11.89 75.02
(1.21-1.62) (3.63-4.03) (0.120-0.206) (26.0-77.3) (7.2-87.5) (33.6-77.7) (3.81-16.45) (2.67-13.69) (68.71-114.1) (6.50-21.82) (62.21-92.28)
JW8 1.54 5.08 0.236 26.4 35.70 38.46 6.92 3.59 20.23 6.24 13.99
(1.24-1.79) (4.79-5.30) (0.095-0.285) (6.0-76.0) (7.26-72.5) (15.9-74.2) (0.43-22.25) (1.98-7.44) (16.32-29.64) (3.46-11.68) (11.53-17.96)
JWS1 7.54 44.262 12475.9 8.35 15.91 2.82 3.65 29.57 26.49 3.08
(7.06-8.03) (53.1-54.8) (4148.1-20290.9) (5.0-12.5) (7.9-29.6) (0.16-6.67) (0.30-7.93) (25.34-31.81) (21.99-29.59) (2.17-3.76)
JWS2 7.68 44.040 13049.0 7.06 14.69 3.24 2.68 29.67 28.67 1.00
(6.99-8.16) (52.3-54.4) (5177.7-19310.0) (1.5-12.0) (3.1-29.0) (0.17-7.20) (0.50-4.53) (26.10-31.80) (24.39-31.34) (0.42-1.71)
JWS3 7.71 43.101 9615.1 10.46 17.63 2.49 3.38 29.45 28.59 0.86
(7.23-8.17) (51.4-54.2) (4803.7-14850.0) (4.2-23.3) (9.4-27.6) (0.08-6.65) (1.22-7.12) (25.38-32.54) (24.25-31.29) (0.21-1.28)
382
Appendix C
Water
Monitoring EC Cl- NO3 TN PO43+ TP TC IC
Table pH TOC mg/L
Location mS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
m
Bonogin
BO1 3.30 6.75 0.450 66.5 61.37 41.09 5.94 3.82 37.08 36.13 0.96
(2.95-3.67) (6.36-7.48) (0.379-0.534) (35.3-114.3) (14.0-135.0) (15.1-73.0) (0.81-13.47) (0.08-8.66) (29.08-39.81) (27.21-39.32) (0.49-1.87)
BO3 2.44 6.43 0.360 113.3 89.69 39.95 14.55 2.83 ~ ~ ~
(0.00-3.84) (6.03-6.97) (0.219-0.580) (87.5-158.5) (33.8-160.0) (33.2-48.7) (0.85-32.45) (1.73-3.31) ~ ~ ~
BO4 1.23 6.89 0.511 86.0 26.47 28.44 9.97 3.53 34.37 32.35 2.02
(0.99-1.80) (6.44-7.31) (0.438-0.586) (65.5-134.2) (5.0-70.0) (7.8-46.7) (0.65-52.97) (0.59-13.29) (28.61-36.45) (27.99-34.64) (0.28-5.40)
BO5 1.22 6.41 0.365 314.5 94.92 41.42 9.97 1.97 ~ ~ ~
(0.00-1.87) (5.65-7.14) (0.238-0.592) (75.5-657.8) (25.0-180.0) (7.2-65.7) (1.22-19.97) (1.91-2.01) ~ ~ ~
BOS1 6.89 0.288 64.1 7.67 13.93 4.28 2.57 13.85 10.33 3.52
(6.45-7.47) (0.230-0.321) (51.7-76.8) (5.0-12.5) (6.5-27.8) (0.38-10.82) (0.18-5.44) (8.948-17.07) (6.57-13.74) (0.67-6.52)
BOS2 7.24 0.345 64.1 7.60 11.74 3.13 2.28 14.53 9.28 5.24
(6.82-7.71) (0.253-0.398) (49.4-82.5) (2.0-11.5) (3.0-21.1) (0.52-5.80) (0.18-4.40) (10.52-17.81) (5.66-13.13) (4.68-5.81)
BOS3 7.20 0.327 58.2 7.25 10.59 2.13 4.14 12.00 7.26 4.74
(6.7-7.83) (0.248-0.482) (35.4-91.5) (3.0-12.0) (5.0-15.2) (0.49-4.75) (0.17-11.97) (9.42-14.19) (5.19-8.72) (4.22-5.46)
BOS4 7.20 0.291 48.6 7.10 7.65 3.31 2.70 17.56 13.07 4.50
(6.82-7.87) (0.254-0.331) (27.1-78.0) (4.0-11.5) (2.6-14.8) (0.81-6.97) (0.25-4.90) (13.22-21.75) (8.95-14.97) (3.43-6.78)
BOS5 7.18 0.274 56.9 7.00 12.04 3.97 3.59 13.99 8.98 5.01
(6.73-7.68) (0.245-0.314) (33.9-78.8) (2.5-10.0) (4.0-25.6) (0.44-9.38) (0.71-7.59) (11.23-16.47) (6.62-10.67) (4.46-5.8)
383
Appendix C
Water
Monitoring EC Cl- NO3 TN PO43+ TP TC IC
Table pH TOC mg/L
Location mS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
m
Coomera
CO1 1.39 6.74 3.954 1065.1 76.39 56.68 9.43 4.02 36.07 16.89 21.75
(1.30-1.49) (6.02-7.77) (3.08-4.54) (714.9-1450.0) (17.5-205.0) (14.1-93.0) (0.82-42.45) (0.25-7.54) (16.17-52.26) (6.43-24.85) (9.35-32.14)
CO2 0.94 6.18 3.819 1128.3 41.52 40.69 3.81 5.77 63.99 57.30 6.69
(0.68-1.35) (5.97-6.63) (3.08-4.98) (665.6-1511.2) (16.5-65.0) (12.2-73.5) (0.23-5.83) (0.96-10.07) (45.19-81.58) (36.82-78.55) (3.03-9.31)
COS1 6.95 47.640 10624.0 9.26 17.98 3.99 2.88 34.76 31.97 2.78
(6.26-7.81) (40.0-53.9) (3464.9-16220.0) (1.5-15.5) (2.6-29.7) (0.02-11.70) (1.48-6.19) (28.34-41.07) (24.21-38.56) (0.06-5.97)
Lower Beechmont
BE1 9.43 6.47 0.320 40.5 8.74 12.60 3.26 2.47 26.10 23.26 2.84
(9.25-9.54) (6.21-6.90) (0.278-0.374) (19.5-76.0) (5.0-13.3) (3.89-30.96) (1.18-7.88) (0.92-4.66) (20.15-28.27) (17.71-24.93) (1.94-3.61)
Tallebudgera
TA1 6.65 15.044 4874.4 7.02 17.09 2.96 1.98 23.88 19.28 4.60
(5.89-7.46) (0.944-35.2) (242.0-12334.4) (2.5-10.3) (4.7-27.0) (0.28-10.32) (0.28-4.59) (12.90-28.60) (7.80-23.68) (3.68-5.83)
TA2 7.52 0.373 22.8 6.75 13.43 2.32 2.80 8.61 6.47 2.14
(6.9-8.23) (0.121-1.85) (1.0-58.25) (3.3-10.0) (5.6-28.3) (0.62-4.06) (0.32-5.75) (6.68-10.56) (3.87-7.72) (1.18-3.28)
TA3 7.23 0.119 22.7 7.02 14.33 2.30 3.92 8.29 4.47 3.82
(6.84-7.87) (0.105-0.176) (3.9-61.3) (4.5-10.5) (3.4-26.8) (0.80-5.86) (0.41-8.42) (6.33-10.32) (3.07-5.65) (2.76-5.15)
384
Appendix C
Table C.3 Average (range) concentrations of microbiological contaminants at sample monitoring locations
Monitoring HPC Tot. Col. FC Monitoring Tot. Col. FC
HPC cfu/100mL
Location cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL Location cfu/100mL cfu/100mL
Cabbage Tree Point Jacobs Well

CT1 14617 1342 12 JW1 453500 1644 88
(1000-38000) (20-6500) (10-20) (81000-1000000) (25-7000) (10-300)
CT2 9167 838 86 JW2 369667 608 50
(1000-16000) (100-2300) (10-310) (98000-1000000) (100-1600) (10-100)
CT3 50733 1522 10 JW3 49667 2027 105
(1000-160000) (10-3100) (10-10) (26000-85000) (100-5000) (10-400)
CT4 15683 182 19 JW4 55000 855 80
(100-37000) (60-380) (4-40) (10000-100000) (80-2600) (10-220)
CT5 6275 543 10 JW5 86167 3030 77
(100-14000) (110-800) (10-10) (2000-260000) (50-15000) (10-100)
CT6 32667 488 39 JW6 102783 10817 135
(1000-120000) (50-1700) (6-110) (1700-400000) (900-42000) (8-600)
CT7 18833 910 864 JW7 82407 3643 28
(1000-32000) (100-3300) (10-4200) (940-260000) (200-10000) (10-100)
CT8 181200 3360 578 JW8 50617 1895 100
(20000-490000) (800-10000) (90-1200) (3500-120000) (22-10000) (10-320)
CS1 985 513 64 JWS1 468 121 12

(8-3000) (130-1200) (1-170) (6-1000) (28-340) (2-22)
CS2 1185 505 169 JWS2 510 220 59
(7-3000) (50-1600) (4-900) (8-800) (10-400) (2-120)
CS3 5300 870 330 JWS3 668 375 64
(1400-14000) (300-1700) (10-540) (7-1200) (70-850) (1-330)
385
Appendix C
Table C.3 (continued)

Monitoring HPC Tot. Col. FC
Location cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL
Coomera
CO1 98833 2298 183
(18000-210000) (100-8800) (100-300)
CO2 152900 13383 2017
(2400-660000) (1000-48000) (100-7000)
COS1 1052 412 27

(7-2400) (45-1700) (1-100)
Bonogin
BE1 101 55 2
(2-200) (5-200) (2-2)
Tallebudgera
TA1 1244 1044 108
(20-2400) (180-1900) (40-160)
TA2 1338 1900 108
(14-2400) (1100-3000) (50-180)
TA3 2544 2080 86
(18-6000) (1200-3800) (40-170)
386
Appendix C
387
APPENDIX D
SOURCING OF FAECAL CONTAMINATION
GOLD COAST CITY
387
Appendix D
Sourcing of Faecal Contamination
Identification of E. coli isolates using Antibiotic Resistance Pattern Analysis
For methodology in using ARP for source identification, see Chapter 8.0
Table D.1 Antibiotics and concentrations used for determining ARP patterns
Antibiotic Concentrations (mg/mL)
Amoxicillin 5 10 15 20
Cephalothin 10 25 50 100
Erythromycin 20 50 100 200
Gentamicin 20 40 60 80
Ofloxacin 5 10 15 20
Chlortetracycline 20 40 60 80
Tetracycline 20 40 60 80
Moxalactam 5 10 15 20
Table D.2: Known source isolate groups and assigned group categories
Source No. Isolates ARP 1 Category ARP 2 Category
Human 210 Human Human (HUM)
Dog 178
Domestic (DOM)
Cat 57
Poultry 65
Cow 112
Livestock (LIVE)
Horse 136
Goat 27
Non-Human
Seagull 38
Duck 60
Possum 28
Wild (WILD)
Kangaroo 51
Wallaby 57
Koala 7
388
Appendix D
Average Rates of Correct Classification (ARCC) of known source isolates
Table D.3: ARCC for source isolates categorised as Human versus Non-human
determined through Discriminant Analysis
Number & %CC isolates classified as
Source
Non-Human Human Correctly Classified
Non-Human (n = 557) 544 13 97.7%
Human (n = 160) 16 144 90.0%
Average Rate Correct Class. (ARCC) 93.8%
Table D.4: ARCC for source isolates categorised as Domestic, Livestock, Wild or
Human determined through Discriminant Analysis
Number & %CC isolates classified as
Source
Domestic Livestock Wild Human Correctly Classified
Domestic (n = 179) 141 27 11 0 78.8%

Livestock (n = 190) 5 157 28 0 82.6%
Wild (n = 188) 5 25 155 3 82.4%
Human (n = 160) 1 0 14 145 90.6%
Average Rate Correct Class. (ARCC) 83.6%
6
Non-Human
5 Hum
3
Discrim Funct 2 (36.6%)
-1
-2
-3
-4
-10 -5 0 5
Figure D.1: Discriminant grouping of Human versus Non-human source isolates
389
Appendix D
6
Dom
5 Hum
Live
4 Wild
3
-1
-2
-3
-4
-10 -5 0 5
Figure D.1: Discriminant grouping of Human, Livestock, Domestic and Wild source
isolates
390
Appendix D
Table D.5: Classification of unknown source isolates sampled from monitoring

locations
Source Identification (%) of unkown source isolates
No.
Monitoring Site Non-
Isolates Human Human Domestic Livestock Wild
human
Cabbage Tree
(n = 86)
Point
Groundwater
CT1 33.6 66.4 33.6 25.4 3.2 37.8
CT2 14.5 85.5 14.5 23.6 0.0 61.9
CT3 49.6 50.4 49.6 13.6 1.0 35.8
CT4 9.6 90.4 9.6 35.4 0.0 55.0
CT5 63.2 36.8 63.2 23.1 0.0 13.7
CT6 54.2 45.8 54.2 23.1 2.1 20.6
CT7 23.4 76.6 23.4 31.4 0.0 45.2
CT8 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Surface Water
CTS1 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CTS2 34.5 65.5 34.5 10.3 0.0 55.2
CTS3 55.6 44.4 55.5 22.2 0.0 22.2
Jacobs Well (n = 72)

Groundwater
JW1 4.7 95.3 4.7 21.8 7.9 65.6
JW2 34.9 65.1 34.9 45.1 0.0 20.0
JW3 59.8 40.2 59.8 25.4 0.0 14.8
JW4 16.7 83.3 16.7 12.8 3.8 66.7
JW5 6.9 93.1 6.9 13.5 0.0 79.6
JW6 66.7 33.3 66.7 0 0.0 33.3
JW7 10.4 89.6 10.4 55.5 0.0 34.1
JW8 80.5 19.5 80.5 10.4 0.0 9.1
Surface Water
JWS1 50.0 50.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0
JWS2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 94.8 5.2
JWS3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 93.1 6.9
Coomera (n = 69)
Groundwater
CO1 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CO2 55.2 44.8 55.2 5.2 0.0 39.6
Surface Water
COS1 66.7 33.3 66.7 13.3 0.0 20.0
391
Appendix D
Table D.5: Classification of unknown source isolates sampled from monitoring

locations (continued)
Source Identification (%) of unkown source isolates
No.
Monitoring Site Non-
Isolates Human Human Domestic Livestock Wild
human
Bonogin Valley (n = 288)
Groundwater
BO1 50.0 50.0 50.0 6.2 26.6 17.2
BO3 5.6 94.4 5.6 35.5 15.2 43.7
BO4 33.8 66.2 33.8 38.5 1.9 25.8
BO5 63.2 36.8 80.0 12.3 0.0 7.7
Surface Water
BOS1 40.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 60.0
BOS2 54.5 45.5 33.3 0.0 16.7 50.0
BOS3 10.0 90.0 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2
BOS4 51.7 48.3 31.0 13.8 6.9 48.3
BOS5 55.6 44.4 55.6 22.2 0.0 22.2
Lower Beechmont
Groundwater (n = 5)
BE1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Tallebudgera Ck
Surface Water (n = 169)
TA1 24 76 24 0 53 24
TA2 37 63 37 6 34 23
TA3 47 53 47 0 0 53
392

Steven Carroll Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steven Carroll Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RISK-BASED APPROACH TO ON-SITE WASTEWATER

TREATMENT SYSTEM SITING DESIGN AND

A Thesis by Publication Submitted in

Bachelor of Engineering Hons(Civil)

Centre for Built Environment and Engineering Research

The research conducted was multidisciplinary in nature, with detailed investigations

Papers 4, 5 and 6 (Chapters 6 - 8) focus on contamination issues of ground and

The outcomes of this research have significantly contributed to knowledge of best

Keywords: On-site wastewater treatment systems, risk assessment, risk

2. Khalil, W.A.S, Goonetilleke, A., Kokot, S and Carroll, S. (2004) Use of

3. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A., Khalil, W.A.S. and Frost, R. (2004)

4. Carroll, S. and Goonetilleke, A. (2005) Assessment of high density of onsite

5. Carroll, S., Hargreaves, M. and Goonetilleke, A. (2004) Sourcing fecal

Peer Reviewed International Conference Papers

2. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A. and Hargreaves, M. (2004) Assessment of

Chapter 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2.0 On-site Wastewater Treatment ......................................................... 17

Chapter 3 Framework for soil suitability evaluation for sewage effluent

Chapter 5.0 Use of chemometrics methods and multicriteria decision-making

Chapter 6.0 Assessment of high density of onsite wastewater treatment systems

Chapter 9.0 Integrated risk framework for onsite wastewater treatment

Chapter 11.0 Implementation of Integrated Risk Framework,

Chapter 12.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................. 334

Chapter 13.0 Consolidated List of References.................................................... 339

Appendix A Assessment of environmental and public health risk of on-site

I wish to acknowledge the generous support provided by Dr John Hayes, School of

1.1 Background to Research Project

1.2 Research Aims

1. To develop a comprehensive understanding of the processes relating to on-site

2. To develop a comprehensive understanding of the fate and transport of specific

1.3 Scope and Research Objectives

On-site wastewater treatment systems are common throughout southeast Queensland.

Therefore, the primary objectives of the research project were:

1. To develop a methodology for hazard identification and characterisation,

1.4 Justification of Research

1.5 Study Area

Figure 1.1: Gold Coast City showing locations of OWTS

Figure 1.2: Soil association of Gold Coast City

1.6 Research Methodology

The implementation of a suitable methodology which adequately encompasses the

The implementation of the developed research methodology was formulated around

1.7 Multivariate Data Analytical Techniques

Baseline data Stakeholder consultation

Hazard identification Preliminary risk criteria

Selection of study sites Papers

Paper Data collection Soil, surface water

Paper 3 Data review and

Additionally, the use of multicriteria decision making aids, such as PROMETHEE

number of pre-defined groups using linear combinations of analysed variables. This

PROMETHEE and GAIA

GAIA provides a diagrammatic representation of the ranking methods of

1.8 Linkage of scientific papers

Satisfactory performance of on-site wastewater treatment systems, in particular

ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT

On-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) are capable of providing adequate

from computer based models, to more refined management frameworks that

2.2 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems

Unexcavated area Effluent disposal area

Figure 2.1: Common on-site wastewater treatment systems used in Australia.

2.2.1 Septic Tanks

Figure 2.2: Typical single chamber septic tank, showing the

2.2.1.2 Operation and Maintenance

2.2.2 Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Systems